Monthly Archives: September 2012

Stephanie Solanki, Seminar 9/10/12

Posted on by

Today in class we looked at the Mona Lisa. We actually gazed at the Mona Lisa and the background. We said in class how it looks like a desert, and a scary forest. I thought it looked like a mix of different landscapes, which adds to the fact that the painting is so dynamic and deep. Most people in the class saw different things, and very seldom were too opinions exactly alike. I think that is the allure of the class, that we can all experience art in New York but we all experience it in different ways. I think it’s interesting that the the background is so complex, yet I haven’t noticed it since before looking at it in class.

I think it’s interesting and very telling of the time period that Mona Lisa is painted with perfect skin, hair, and clothing. I think that maybe this woman was a patron of Da Vinci’s, so he was forced to idealize her. This also shows that the Renaissance woman was ideal and perfect.

It’s interesting that this painting is part of the “Big Three” most famous paintings. I like that it’s so simple at first glance, but one I start gazing at it I see so much more. I notice the oval patterns in the painting, and I now see a connection with the “Last Supper” in which Da Vinci painted many triangles.

This same principle applies with Nighthawks by Edward Hopper. I learned how to see patterns in paintings like the rectangles on the building in the back, and the rectangular shape of the diner itself. I now see the language of painting, that there are patterns and different ways of expressing an idea.

A connection I thought of between the two paintings is the use of light. The background in the “Mona Lisa” is darker than her face and skin, which is done on purpose to draw attention to the face. The same thing is done in “Nighthawks” with the woman in red, because the painting is done so that it seems that the lighting fixture is directly on top of her. It really works to grab attention and make that portion of the painting stand out more.

Edward Hopper’s Style: 9/12/12

Posted on by

In today’s Seminar class, we first discussed the argument Men vs. Women, in relation to how they are viewed in society and the different standards men and women are held to.  Men seem to be given much more leniency when observing their appearance, especially if the person in question is seen in a certain light and has a title or persona attached to him or her.  Take Robert DeNiro as an example.  We viewed a photo of him at this year’s Tribeca Film Festival and I noticed aspects of his appearance that I had never really taken note of before.  His face showed signs of aging, his hair was long and wavy, and while he was dressed presentably, he didn’t appear to be overly dressed for the event.  In our society, because he is a celebrity, and this is his style, it is acceptable for him to be seen in public in this manner.  A woman who appeared in public in a similar fashion would not be respected in the same way and would most likely be frowned upon.  I had never thought about appearance in such detail before, but after examining Robert DeNiro and The Mona Lisa (which are obviously two totally separate ends of the spectrum), I realized that it is much more socially acceptable for a man to be seen in a style such as Robert DeNiro’s, whereas a woman, whether in the age of Mona Lisa or today, is always expected to be in her best attire and looking more than simply presentable.

This subject of style was then related to artists, most specifically to the artist Edward Hopper.  We looked at 12 of Edward Hopper’s paintings that are on display at the Whitney Museum of American Art.  Many of Hopper’s paintings are realistic and universal, relatable at many different levels of society.  The first painting we looked at, American Landscape, depicted a house in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by farm animals and grass.  Such a scene is not unlikely to find in America, even today.  It was probably more common in the 1900’s, but in certain areas of the country today, you could still find abandoned-looking houses, surrounded by forest, wheat, and animals, and it is a common way of life for some people.  In his 1921 painting, New York Interior, we saw a young girl, most likely a ballerina, sitting in her bedroom, possibly sewing a piece of clothing.  The bedroom consisted of a bed, painting, door, and a fireplace.  Most of us noticed the fireplace right away, and commented on the fact that it is not uncommon to find a fireplace in people’s houses, even today.  The fireplace appeared to be classic, and very in touch with the scene.  There was nothing very out of the ordinary about the painting, and it depicted easy identifiable objects and actions.  One of the final paintings that we discussed in detail was Hopper’s painting, Self Portrait,1925-1930. This painting depicted a man, dressed casually yet presentably, with a look on his face that seemed to express puzzlement or curiosity.  He was alone, looking at something that was not shown in the painting, off to the side.  His mannerisms and appearance was similar to that of Robert DeNiro, which we had discussed earlier in the class.  His clothing was slightly wrinkled, and he seemed to give off the persona that he was “just another guy, like everybody else.” The analysis of this painting brought us back to the original question of, “What is Edward Hopper’s style?”

I think Hopper’s style has very much to do with realism and everyday life.  Even in Hopper’s other paintings that we observed, Night Shadows, East Side Interior, Early Sunday Morning, and Seven AM, I think there are aspects in each of those paintings that people can relate to.  For example, in Night Shadows, anybody walking down a deserted street late at night will most likely be walking briskly and quietly, just hoping to make it from Point A to Point B safely and without any disruptions.  Hopper’s style seems to be about creating depictions that are universal, that can be easily seen and related to during any time period and in any location.   I really enjoyed looking at and analyzing Hopper’s paintings and choosing the realistic and common aspects that could be found in each of them, things I could relate to and understand.  I think looking at his art and analyzing it helps to give me a deeper appreciation for artists and the time they put in to creating their own unique works of art.

Edward Hopper’s style of Art

Posted on by

Today in class, we viewed various paintings from Edward Hopper’s vast collection in which he depicts real life moments. I immediately noticed that he didn’t do a lot of meddling with the scene itself. He painted it as it is but of course, as many painters do, highlighted focal points through his color choices and the contours of the image itself. While these scenes might not have occurred, the viewer can witness these images all around them and is therefore able to use the relatable surroundings to bring meaning to the focal point of the painting.

For instance, in the 1921 “Night Shadows”, the painting itself is very cartoonish but the scene itself is more than common within our society. The painting  seems like a sketch but the use of the contrasting colors white and black brings immediate attention to what seems to be a very shady man in the middle of a vacant street corner. The contrasting color of white is used in between the darkness of black to isolate the man, making him the obvious focal point.  He is overpowered by the shadow of a streetlight but again, the reason why the streetlight is towering over him is not because the streetlight is of impossible disproportional measures but because our position as the critic of this particular scene is from an elevated height. So again, Hopper sticks to reality which is by using contrasting colors and different angles to bring definition to what is already present. The familiarity the viewers have with the scenario of seeing a strange man during a strange time of day, allows us to conclude that their is an abnormality with his presence. We put his small stature, which is again because of our great height with the colors used and with the towering shadow of the streetlight that dominates him, to create a conclusion that this man might be up to no good. Our understanding that resulted from this familiarity allows us to further analyze his physical use of angles, shades, and his coloring style. I personally thought he seemed sketchy from his isolation so I figured Hopper intended to use the sketch style to hint at the focal point’s “sketchy” behavior.

Regardless of the reality of the purpose of the painting, Hopper was successful in his attempt at using his style of bringing the familiarity of everyday situations to allow the viewers to make a conclusion. We are therefore able to question the endless possibilities because of the fact that we are so familiar. If Hopper were to use scenarios present only in oblivion, our thoughts might be a little more scattered because we may not be as rational as we are with his works.

Hopper seems to love the idea of mystery and ambiguity. His very own portrait has an incredible number of shadows on his own face which shows that only in reality, is he present. The viewers all know what a portrait is but the meaning behind his own is that there might be more to him than just what you see. His obsession with ambiguity is very apparent since even something so simple as a two dimensional visual presentation of someone’s face is skewed into being something that has to be further analyzed. For him, there is what a viewer sees and then what the viewer understands, making him unique because he seems to find detail and story in something that most people wouldn’t think much about.

 

9/12/12

Posted on by

9/12/12

In today’s seminar, we talked about how we judge the people around us, especially based on gender. We looked at a photo of Robert De Niro, and judged his appearance and our feelings on it. We looked  how he had scruffy facial hair, as if he knows who he is, and does’t feel the need to get all dressed up. We also examined his eyes, and how it has the “You talkin’ to me?” feel to it. But we concluded that he looks good, although if we saw a random person with his hair and scruff, we would classify them as a bum, rather than a famous actor. I realized that I do the same thing, when I see someone, I judge them based on their looks. Little do I know they could be a famous, rich musician possibly.

After this, we looked at the Mona Lisa yet again! We discussed how she was dressed nicely, sort of upper class. But after examining her appearance, especially her well kept hair and possibly silk clothes, we found that if she were to be as sloppy as Robert De Niro, we would condescend her.

Once we finished discussing how we judge the appearance, we talked about style. It made me wonder how I would define style. Personally, I feel that style is a representation of someone’s personality, and how they want them to envision them. That is in terms of dress, in terms of art, its a representation of the time they were in and they’re view on that period.

I got a lot from this lesson, we talked about other things after, but these were what I mainly extracted. From now on, I will truly look deeper into someone before judging their appearance.

 

9/10/12

Posted on by

9/10/12

Today in seminar, we looked at the Mona Lisa. This painting is arguably the most famous in the present world. It is famous for several reasons too, other than its beauty as a painting. The look she has is a sort of mysterious air about it. We discussed the contradiction of emotion between her cynical, mysterious eyes and the satisfied smirk she has on her face. Another thing we discussed was the background to this painting. While most people focus primarily on the lady in the painting, we focused on the background of it. The background is very interesting, to say the least. The scenery is a beautiful river along with mountains on the upper portion, but a desert in the lower portion. It has been concluded that this is a fictitious place, but is generally thought to be Italian. In my opinion, I am not a huge fan of the beauty, but I do appreciate the mysterious feel it has to it. It makes me wonder what she was looking at, or what was going on behind Da Vinci when he was painting it.

I know that these are my true feelings for they were what I experienced when I first looked at it, but I did not develop a true appreciation for its beauty after really looking at it.  Its similar to a first impression of a person, for they are usually how you truly feel about someone.

It was a very interesting class, and I took a lot out of it, especially the way I judge a painting’s beauty as well as its hidden meanings.

Seminar 9/10

Posted on by

Today, we took time to analyze the background of Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, and Hopper’s Nighthawk. Normally I do not analyze an entire painting. When I see a piece of artwork, my eyes skim the surface of it, and I move on. Today I learned that if you take time to look at a painting and analyze it, you begin to see many hidden meanings in the painting, and it becomes more complex. I also learned that when you look at a painting closely, you can also create a story from a painting.
So today it was interesting to look at art in a different way. I saw that in both of the paintings, there are many levels of complexity, and it is up to us as the viewers, to try and put ourselves in the mind of the artist and figure out different aspects of the painting. Some of these aspects are easy to decipher, while others are more difficult. For example, a simple aspect of Da Vinci’s work would be the river in the background. The river was painted there to bring the viewer’s attention to Mona Lisa’s eyes. When you look at her eyes, you find a more complex aspect of Da Vinci’s work to decipher because her eyes convey many different expressions.
In Hopper’s work, there are fewer complexes than Da Vinci’s work, and you can create more of a story from this work. The different emotions that you get from each of the people in the work, allows you to create a story out of it. For example, you get a sense of loneliness from the man that is separated from the rest of the people. Hopper sort of painted him into the darkness of the background, so he has a depressed feeling about him as well. Maybe he lost his job. Maybe he had a fight with his wife. Who knows? The story of the man is left open and for us to decide. The second man, and the bartender, seem to be deeply immersed in conversation and could be conversing about an important topic, since the painting was made in 1942, it could something about the war that is going on. We don’t know for sure, but that is the interesting part in analyzing an artwork like this, and the artist keeps us guessing.

Mona Lisa talk. 9-10

Posted on by

Today, I noticed when the class was trying to decide what the three focal points of the Mona Lisa were, the background of the painting was taken into account. I never would’ve thought to include the background into deciding focal points but it makes sense. Looking at the picture now, the three different terrains help the observer decide the focal points. The lighter background, which consists of the sky, the forest, and the river leading into the ocean, accompany the first focal point. The second focal point includes the dry, mysterious land our class spent some time describing earlier in the discussion. The third focal point doesn’t have much of a background but it is even darker, almost blending in with the subject’s clothes.

One student mentioned that the complexity of the background compliments the simplicity of the subject. Even though many people, including myself don’t find the subject “simple”, the observation ties into why this painting has stood the test of time. The background is indeed complex; different types of geological features, chaotic formations, and varying colors. This helps the viewer focus, unconsciously, on the subject’s face.

When we began talking about how to approach art, we discussed our favorite scenes from movies. More specifically, we spoke about how in movies, directors will make a slight pause after important lines to evoke an emotion in us the first few times we watch the movie. After watching the movie many times, this pause can become awkward. I realized this when I thought of one of my favorite films, the Breakfast Club. A memorable line from the movie is, “Screws fall out all the time, the world’s an imperfect place”, and there is a slight pause that is almost undetected except that an angry principal who was previously shouting wouldn’t make such a pause when dealing with a troublesome student talking back.

Monday September 10, 2012 – Mona Lisa & Nighthawk

Posted on by

After reading “Ways of Seeing,” by John Berger, my entire outlook of the world around me was altered significantly. Not only did my immediate perception about the way I analyze and interpret different things change; but also, more importantly the way I saw my future and all it encompasses was drastically modified. For example, in our Monday class, we interpreted the Mona Lisaby Leonardo Da Vinci. At first glance, it seemed to me as if the subject painted and the background contrasted greatly. This is because the colors and shades used didn’t exactly flow coherently with one another. However, I quickly began to look at the particular painting as a whole, instead of critiquing minuscule fragments of the artwork.  Therefore, there is deceptiveness when comparing the complexity and simplicity in both the person and the background because they do embody characteristics of being plain as well as being quite arduous to fully comprehend. The focal point in this piece of work is her eyes, which divides the background. It left me quite puzzled as to what occupies the space next to her left shoulder. Personally, I perceive it as a miniature cliff of some kind and the river flows around it connecting the line back to her eyes. By doing this, it makes the subject’s eyes even feel more central. It’s ironic how the background of the painting is as mysterious as the person herself. The audience is quite befuddled when asked the question if she is smirking, frowning, or even smiling. However, something clearly that I noticed was the common geometric shape which happened to be an oval. For example, her body, her eyes, her hand shape, and even the shapes below the bridge all epitomize an oval.  Akin to all magnificent works of art, music, and dance a formula must be followed and once the foundation is laid, imagination must take over, expanding one’s horizon. The Mona Lisa is a clear-cut example in which at first glance, it seems quite prosaic and dull; but when I delved deeper into it, I formulated various conclusions, assumptions, and contrasting ideas concerning the background and the subject painted.  The next artwork we looked at was Nighthawk by Edward Hopper. Contrasting greatly from the Mona Lisa, the overall geometric shape present was a rectangle. The idea of the difference between light and dark, I believe was the foundation for painting this piece of artwork. The reason I feel that way is because the light that was beaming on the middle-aged woman made her look quite unappealing and clownish due to the heavy eye makeup and bright red lipstick. This tells me, as the interpreter, that maybe the artist wanted to assign a negative light on women during this time. Clearly, the men portrayed represent a positive persona, in which they are conversing with each other and epitomize a mysterious side to them. All in all, after reading Mr. Berger’s book, the way I see and think is like never before. I begin to make connections I never thought of before, which definitely will benefit me later on in life.

Seminar Class 09/10/12

Posted on by

Yesterday’s seminar class was spent discussing two famous paintings. The first painting that the class analyzed was The Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci. The Mona Lisa probably the most known painting in art history. Almost anyone could look at the painting and automatically distinguish which one it is. I was always a fan of The Mona Lisa and yesterday’s class helped me realize and analyze the true beauty of the full painting. When I  used to look a the painting I never payed any attention to the background of the painting. To be honest, I never even knew there was a background to the painting. When the class discussed the background of the picture, we all noticed that there were two different types of scenery. The background towards the top of the painting included a river and forestry while the background towards the bottom of the page seemed almost desert-like as if a wildfire had occurred. We also discussed the complexity of her facial expression. Her eyes look very serious while she has a slight smirk on her face as well. Her eyes, however, are the true focal point of the painting and are usually the first things a person looks at while viewing this famous painting. As a result of analyzing both the woman and the background, the class agreed that the background is just as mysterious as the subject.

We also looked at the painting Nighthawks by Edward Hopper. This painting was created in 1942 and seemed as if it took place in a bar in New York City. It shows three regular customers and the man who works behind the bar. There is one man alone while the other is sitting with the only woman as if they were a couple. Unlike The Mona Lisa, Nighthawks is easily identified as an American painting. Just by looking at the style of clothing and the decor of the bar, many can people can tell that this painting is based off of American culture. In reality, this painting symbolizes the typical American trying to achieve the American dream. The people in the painting seem to be at the bar late at night after a long day of work and providing for their family.

Even though i enjoyed discussing both of these paintings, my favorite of the two was The Mona Lisa. Analyzing this painting in class truly opened my eyes to the full meaning of the painting. Before this class, I always thought of this painting to be simple. Now I realize that it is very complex ad difficult to analyze.

Mona Lisa and NightHawks

Posted on by

Due to all the math and science I have to sit through in college, schoolwork tends to be monotonous at times.  However, there are two classes that I really look forward to, one being “Intro to Film.”  This class is longer than any other class I have but it never feels that way.  The lectures are interesting and the professor is young and socially connected with her students.  The second class is “The Arts of New York,” simply because it never feels like the typical college class.

The most recent class was about the way people see art, literally and metaphorically.  We started off with the Mona Lisa, Leonardo Da Vinci’s masterpiece.  There were many interesting thoughts thrown around about the painting, especially about the background of the painting.  I never noticed until then that the background consisted of a river, a desert and even a bridge.  The fact that I never even thought about the background shows how much I have to improve the way I examine art.

Speaking of the Mona Lisa, I did have one thought about the painting I did not get to share. I always thought the Mona Lisa seemed as though she saw the viewer do something embarrassing. It may be a bit too comical, but the Mona Lisa’s face looked as if she caught the viewer do something wrong and only she and the viewer knew what it is.

The second work of art was Edward Hopper’s, Nighthawks.  This work brought out many opinions from the class but I never felt like the class nor I captured the essence of the piece.  Professor Kahan’s brief explanation of the art seemed the most accurate, especially her part about the war.  The art did seem as a depiction of a night during World War II.  The work had an irksome quality to it, specifically the depressing feeling an individual might experience when thinking of a war.  When I think of a war I am calm like the setting in the artwork, but my thoughts are as glum as the painting’s darkness.

I am eager to experience the next theme of the class, and I would not mind it being the same as the one we just had.  If I can, I would like to recommend the artworks of Salvador Dali.  His art is all over my house and his work is extremely complex and entertaining.