This week in seminar, we spoke about gaze. First, we gazed at a picture of Robert DeNiro, an exemplar of power and fame. We spoke about the specific features of his face that complemented his personality. Even though the picture was taken at an award ceremony, he looked like he had not shaved recently, and his long hair was not done flawlessly like many other stars would have their hair if they had been in his position. This conveys his rough persona perfectly. Robert DeNiro has a certain attitude that everyone knows because he is so famous. His “tough guy” carefree attitude allows him to get away with things like neglecting to shave for an award ceremony, because it is almost expected of him to be rough around the edges and to not care about what others think of him. We also spoke about how there are different expectations for women that are higher than those for men. For example, if a female movie star went to an award ceremony wearing a dress with the tag still on it, she would be criticized by every news station on television about how she “made such a careless mistake,” but if Robert DeNiro went to the same ceremony with his fly open, we would just laugh it off because it would almost be normal to us.
So today, I decided to ask myself a slightly different question on the same topic. Why do we have different views and expectations of famous people than we do for ourselves? If an obnoxious rapper like Kanye West wore a chicken suit one day, no one would even question it. News stations would glorify him for “showing us that everyone can be beautiful in their own way.” Meanwhile, if we saw an ordinary person on the street wearing the same chicken suit, we would probably call the police to contain the mentally unstable and threatening individual. This made me realize that we have a much different view of our lives than we do for celebrities’ lives. We have trained ourselves to be very professional and contained in our everyday lives, but we look to celebrities to view life on the other side; they may represent the side of personality that we wish we could get away with in our everyday lives. Not that we can’t have fun in our “day jobs” per say, but looking at celebrities that act silly and outrageous every day makes us wonder what it would be like. It is almost as if celebrities live a “dream life,” where they can do things that would be unacceptable in average society.
Edward Hopper’s Style
Everyone has their own sense of style, from how they dress to how they speak to how they write. The list can go on and on. Artists, through their work, express their own unique perspective and style. Now, you can not look at one piece from an artist’s portfolio and say, “Hey! His style is ….”. It doesn’t work like that. Style and perspective are developed over many many years and can be seen across various works. So, for example, let’s look at the style of Edward Hopper.
One of Hopper’s most famous works, which we discussed in the last post, is Nighthawks. In the painting, you can see how Hopper uses various light sources and angles to move characters either into the background or foreground. For example, the man sitting by himself at the bar looks a lot darker in the picture than the rest of the characters, while the bartender and couple sitting on the other side are very well lit and distinguishable. In addition, the outside surroundings of the bar are very dark and poorly lit. Your eyes are drawn into the diner, and directly to the couple.
Now, let’s take a look at Night Shadows, another Hopper painting. The same principals of style apply here. In my opinion, I think that this painting is less about the character, but the fact the no one else is around. We as viewers feel almost like we are stalking this man from the rooftops as he is walking to his destination. Once again, the use of the light source, which is greatly exaggerated (which can be concluded by the shadows), is meant to highlight the street and vacancy of the area, rather than the lone person on the street.
9/12/2012 – Edward Hopper’s Style
During Wednesday’s Seminar, we looked at approximately twelve of Edward Hopper’s timeless pieces that belong to the Whitney Museum of Art. Hopper’s paintings all exhibit a certain degree of modern realism. He tends to paint characters in everyday poses, except the viewer is looking in from a hidden angle. The spectators are basically outsiders gazing in.
The first painting we looked at was called “American Landscape”. There we see Hopper’s realism come into play, through the regular farmland look. There are bulls, cows, and even some hay. There are some train tracks going between the house and animals. It goes on to represent early or rural America as having a calm and peaceful lifestyle.
When I first read “Ways of Seeing”, I didn’t really think much of it. However, the more we discuss it in class, I begin to see the wisdom behind the words. It actually means much more, once you start to analyze artwork with the book ideas in mind.
The moment I looked at “The Night Interior”, I thought this is a girl who is getting ready for a party that is taking place in the 20’s. However, when Professor Kahan analyzed it with the class, I began to notice the inner details of the picture. We get to make little assumptions about the character through minor details like the uneven colors in her skin tone, which revealed that she was actually struggling to make a living. She seemed alone and living a harsh life. Next I noticed where the viewer was looking in from, and it appeared that we are actually eavesdropping in on a private moment.
After looking at many of Hopper’s paintings, I noticed that he usually painted a lot of urban scenery. Most of his paintings included people, who were specifically placed at strategic places. Edward Hopper painted landscapes where one character often seemed lonely. They seemed bored or tired of the hard life in the city, but in the countryside, life appeared serene. He expressed loneliness in the city during the 1920’s, maybe even expressing the hopelessness during the early Great Depression.
Robert De Niro and Edward Hopper
I enjoy it when classes give me a new outlook in life. I am not saying that seminar changed my perspective on life or anything to that extent but it changed the way I see art, again. Last seminar, I realized that I should examine a work of art as a whole, not just the centerpiece (thanks to the Mona Lisa). This seminar, it was clear that factoring social status is significant when gazing at art.
One thing I took out of this class was the idea of social class in art. In order to fully understand this aspect of art, the class examined a photograph of Robert De Niro in a highly recognized event. The actor had multiple features worth talking about, including a fuzzy beard. The fuzzy beard displayed that the actor was not well groomed. However, the fact that he had this beard showed power; someone with as much recognition as Robert De Niro can show up at a formal event and be accepted with a fuzzy beard. I honestly cannot believe how much of an impact that photograph had on me. Every time I see someone famous on television or the internet, I try to see how they display power. The one that hit me the quickest was Lady Gaga, I saw her in a abnormal outfit on a Facebook page and thought, “only she could pull this off.”
The rest of class was a discussion of Edward Hopper’s art collection. I do not want to sound ignorant but I did not enjoy most of the collection. The only painting I liked was “Night Shadows” because it made me feel like I was stalking the person in the picture. There was one painting in his collection we did not get to talk about yet but I hope it intrigues me, at least as much as “Night Shadows.”
As long as I can take one little thing from a class I can be content. Socioeconomics is more relevant in art than I thought and I am glad I see that.
9/12/12 Seminar Edward Hoppers Style
Wednesday’s Honors Seminar further broadened my approach to looking at paintings. Since beginning this class and reading Ways of Seeing I have noticed a change in the way I view paintings. Rather than simply trying to imagine what the artist is attempting to portray when creating his/her work I take more initiative to see the different situations that could have sparked the artist’s imagination. When examining Hopper’s “New York Interior” I first thought that it depicted a girl who had just returned from a ball and was resting following a night out. Further into our class discussion, however, Professor Kahan shared her opinion, stating that the painting might have been an image of a girl sewing her dress, perhaps after performing at a ballet recital. The idea that she was a dancer definitely came from the fact that the muscles on the woman in the photo were extremely defined thanks to Hopper’s choice of shading and use of harsh lighting.
Harsh lighting, in my opinion, seems to be a recurring theme with Hopper. For example, in “Nighthawks” another female figure became the victim to harsh lighting. The woman to the back of the painting looked “clown like” as a result of the fluorescent lighting in the painting, which caused her skin tone to appear ghostly white. It also exaggerated her otherwise subtle makeup. Another aspect of Hopper’s style is clearly his love for symmetry in his paintings. In my opinion, it almost appears as though he suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) when creating his works. In almost all of the works Professor Kahan showed us, I noticed a constant theme of shapes in each painting. For example, “Night Shadows” was predominantly vertical, “New york Interior” multiple, vertical rectangles, and “Early Sunday Morning” rectangles. I feel like creating a painting without any recurring shapes would lead to Hopper’s anxiety. In addition to different shapes characterizing Hopper’s style, I think his motif is characterized by emphasizing certain times of day (particularly the night or early morning) and specific settings like street corners. These specific traits are evident in both “Nighthawks” and “Night Shadows.”
In addition to Edward Hopper, wednesday’s seminar consisted of defining the ideas of man vs. woman in regards to each gender’s Ways of Seeing. When we looked at the example of Robert De Niro, what immediately registered in my mind was that a woman could never pull off the “I could hardly care about my image” look that Robert was. Because we have seen him play characters with this precise attitude no one would question it. Other talented actors like Leonardo di Caprio, for example, would have never attended a film festival looking quite as disheveled. If a talented actress like Meryl Streep were to even attempt the same “look” I am sure it would be front page news.
This double standard toward the appearance of men and women has always seemed to be a part of our culture and though I dislike it, I am sure it will not cease to exist.
9/10/12- “Ways of seeing” the Mona Lisa
Most people are familiar with Leonardo da Vinci’s notorious painting “The Mona Lisa”. Its display in the Louvre is a common tourist attraction, and the art piece is often featured in movies, cartoons and on T-shirts. Yet, as accustomed as I am to seeming the painting, I am slightly embarrassed to admit that I have never even noticed the scenery behind the subject’s figure. Perhaps this is because I am usually too mesmerized by the woman’s eyes, which seem to see right through me. The slight smirk on her face appears to indicate that she knows my secrets and is not fooled by my artificial exterior.
However, now that the background was pointed out to me, I cannot help but wonder about the scenery as well. Instead of only depicting one location, the backdrop of the painting seems to include a combination of settings and landscapes. In fact, the many different scenes remind me of the variety of climates and views that I encountered during my year in Israel. On a three-day hike from one end of Israel to the other, I trekked through mountainous deserts, trudged through rocky streams, tripped in deep forests and climbed tall cliffs. Similarly, the “Mona Lisa”’s complex and mysterious landscape contains a mixture of paradoxical and extreme settings. A road in a dry desert leads directly to a vast body of water. Tall mountain peaks are juxtaposed with the dark river and land. This blend of regions creates a sense of timelessness to the painting; different viewers would have been exposed to different locations, and so everyone would be able to relate to the variety of areas. The blurred and smoky aspect of the background creates an aura of mystery and uneasiness that brings that brings the viewer’s eyes back to the woman’s face for comfort. Perhaps this is why I never noticed the background!
Seminar 9-10-12
During Monday’s seminar we looked at The Mona Lisa by Leonardo Da Vinci and Nighthawks by Edward Hopper. I had seen The Mona Lisa before and my feelings towards it were the same as I had remembered. Looking at this piece, I never really thought it deserved the fame and attention that it received. The woman in the drawing seemed awkward, simple, and unattractive. It was because of this that I disliked the painting altogether. It wasn’t until our discussion in class that I realized there was much more to it. For one, her look was not as simple as I was so quick to conclude. Her facial expression may not have been too exaggerated, but it was not simple or emotionless like I had thought. From this class I learned that in order to really appreciate and understand art you need to look deeper. I then took a closer look at the person Da Vinci felt was important for us to see, and realized that she had an indescribable look in her eyes and a smirk that had originally gone unnoticed. I was then led to believe that there was a lot of mystery to this woman and possibly some held in negative emotions. This picture then became more complex and intriguing. I was also amazed at the fact that out of all the times I had looked at this painting, I had never noticed the detailed and scenic background. This only confirmed that I never really gave artwork the attention it needed for it to be truly appreciated.
When we looked at Nighthawks in class, it actually was the first time I had ever seen the painting. Just from first glance I didn’t really take any interest in the piece. Everything was so distant and as the viewer, I wasn’t exactly drawn in. It wasn’t until after the discussion we had in class that I started to become interested. The possibility that this painting told a story and represented a time period was something that never crossed my mind. This scene is from the 1940s and so by looking at it I was able to form conclusions about the time period and get a feel of what it was like living in it. One would be that war was going on and those who stayed behind during the war still had responsibilities. The fact that Hopper felt the need to portray this brings up the possibility that they were maybe overlooked and not given the credit they deserved.
Stephanie Solanki, Seminar 9/12/12
In Wednesday’s class we actually discussed how “gazing” means to look at something on purpose with an intent to analyze it. Mona Lisa’s reciprocal gaze is a part of the painting that has baffled so many people for years. It is so distinct that if someone was to only show her eyes, I would know it was the Mona Lisa.
We also discussed how the perception of decency and class is different between men and women. For example, Robert De Niro can go to a premiere without shaving and trimming his hair, but every actress or female celebrity must look like she’s spent hours getting ready in order to be presentable. This, in my opinion, is not fair at all. I believe that double standard should not exist in today’s world. It would be unjust and debilitating to say that it is not good for a woman or man to make their own choices and behave however he or she is comfortable. However, this is my opinion.
One line that stuck out to me in class is “we ascribe power to a man because of who he is in the world.” If a man goes out into the world and does adventurous, innovative things, then he is a powerful man. He has been places that nobody has ever gone, and has done things that people are afraid to do. Women could do this, too, if they weren’t wearing their controlling hairnets. I mean to say that women must look modest and controlled at all times. This is exemplified by the Mona Lisa, who is wearing a hairnet to control her hair. She must keep it perfect because that is the perception of beauty. Her whole life is about being under control, and not being able to venture out and do daring things. This is a very ancient sort of mindset, in my opinion.
Next we looked at the works of Edward Hopper. His works were all of real-life situations. His “American Landscape” work did not idealize rural American life. It actually made it look quite warped because the dimensions were unique. For example, the cow looks just as big as the house from the point of view the spectator has. This is shows that the rural life of America can be a little scary at times. Hopper does make paintings that look distorted at times, but does so to make a point. This shows how real his work is. I think his style would be realism.
Seminar Class 09/12/12
The main topic of class on wednesday was about the idea of gaze in an artwork. Gaze is defined as a way of looking at or admiring something. In order to get a better understanding of what gaze is, we looked at an excerpt in chapter three in the book Ways of Seeing. This excerpt compared the appearance of men and the appearance of women. It discussed how women must always look their best and presentable while men do not. Women are judged more on their appearance than men are. To look at a few examples of this, we compared the Mona Lisa by Leonardo Da Vinci to a photo of the famous actor Robert De Niro. In the Mona Lisa, there is a picture of a women who is dressed to impress. We know that she is dressed in high quality clothing because the material on her sleeves looks like it was made of silk. This gives us the idea that she is an upper class woman. Her hair is done is beautifully placed curls and she also has a veil or hair net on to make sure her hair is always looking perfect. This gives the audience a good impression of her because of her modest and presentable look. However, when looking at the picture of Robert De Niro, he still gives the audience a good impression even though he does not look his best. In his picture, De Niro has aged. He has wrinkles on his face and gray colored hair. He has a five o’clock shadow on his face and his hair is not combed back nicely. Even though he may not seem presentable, the people of today’s society still think highly of him. Basically, he s allowed to look this way just because he is Robert De Niro. If a commoner looked the same way De Niro did in this picture, people would view this man as a bum instead. This shows that no matter how famous a women may be, she must always look presentable to get approval of the public. However, this idea does not apply to men.
In class, we also discussed the artwork of Edward Hopper and tried to analyze his style. One of his paintings that I found particularly interesting was American Landscape. In this painting, Hopper shows a house on a farm with some farm animals. It seems that there is also a road or train track about the house which implies that the house is located on the bottom of a hill. It is a picture of a typical American landscape. Hopper painted this in a three dimensional style horizontally. The three dimensions include the sky at the top, then the house with the forestry in the background on the bottom of the hill, and then the top of the hill with the hay, train track, and farm animals. Another painting of Edward Hopper that I enjoyed was New York Interior. This painting shows the back of a women who is presumed to be a dancer because she is dressed in a ball gown. She is located in a small apartment in New York City and is sitting down on a sofa or bed next to a fireplace. Similarly to American Landscape, New York Interior is also painted three dimensionally. However, instead of it being painted horizontally it is painted vertically. The walls are vertical, the door in the background is vertical, and the structure of the fireplace and its columns are vertical as well. As a result of looking at these two paintings, I conclude that Edward Hopper’s style is to painting according to dimension and shape. In his paintings, he does not hide his shapes but instead makes them visible to the public eye.
Monday 9/10/12 – Mona Lisa & Nighthawks
During Monday’s class, we discussed Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa and Edward Hopper’s Nighthawks. While analyzing the Mona Lisa, we paid a good amount of attention to the background of the painting. Now, I’d seen the painting hundreds of times before, but I don’t think I’d ever really taken the time to really notice what was going on in the background. All I’d ever paid attention to was Mona Lisa herself, as she is the subject of the painting. Admittedly, I’m no artist, and I’ve always known that it takes talent to be able to draw or paint something well, but at first glance, the Mona Lisa just seems so simple. However, after really looking at the background of the painting, I started to truly appreciate the masterful work Da Vinci did. It’s so intricate; it actually made me think. What’s back there? A few things were pointed out in class: there is a bridge on the right side and there is a forest along the river behind her. It seems like there may be an island behind her. But for all the intricacies and complexities of the background, Da Vinci seems to have left the foreground, Mona Lisa herself, rather simple. And in many ways, she is. Her clothing is dark, not a swirl of colors like the top half of the painting seems to be. Her hair seems neat and orderly. But the real intrigue of this painting, I think, is the expression she’s wearing. I can’t really tell what that expression is. Her mouth is slightly curved upwards, giving the impression of a smile. So is she amused? One might think so, but then after looking at her eyes, it becomes a mystery. She looks rather serious, if you cut off the bottom half of her face.
We moved on to Nighthawks after analyzing the Mona Lisa, and once again, we were greeted with a simple picture. But after thinking about it, there is even more mystery. Why is the street so empty? Who are these people and where are they coming from? Why is there one man sitting alone and are the man and woman who are together in a relationship or not? So many questions are raised right at the first glance. One thought I had about this painting had to do with the title – Nighthawks. If you look closely, you see that the man who is alone is seemingly staring at the “couple” who are sitting at the bar. Is he a nighthawk? Maybe the message Hopper was trying to get across was that at night, we are constantly being watched by “nighthawks.”
What I really took away from the class was that art can really make you think. Something may seem simple at first glance, but if you really take the time to truly analyze art, you may find complex things – things that provoke thought.
