Category: BLOG POST 9 (Page 1 of 2)

Hunger by Ben Shahn 1946

Ben Shahn’s Hunger was completed in 1946, one year after the conclusion of World War II. This work constitutes conceptual art because it responds to the horrors of the war. It features a little boy with darkened facial features, hollowed eyes, and noticeably protruding neck tendons. The tempera paint used allows Shahn to clearly distinguish these features through the lighting. Shahn uses uniform colors in the rest of the painting, which allows the viewers to solely focus on the boy’s face. His face alone gives off feelings of sadness, longing, and desperation–key characteristics of those experiencing the war. Shahn once considered Hunger to be too abstract, but he later realized that it accurately depicted the “sense of emptiness and waste that the war gave me.” It would, therefore, be more accurate to call it a mimesis because it imitates a starving child and suggests a specific interpretation. 

Shahn was a political leftist, and as a result, conservative Congress members vehemently opposed the US State Department’s purchasing of Hunger in 1946. They believed that Shahn was trying to depict Americans as “despondent, broken-down, or of hideous shape…” Hunger, however,  doesn’t explicitly lean towards any particular end of the political spectrum, instead expressing the universal dissatisfaction towards the war. Hunger also covers a broad theme: the impact of the war on those who lived through or still feel the effects of it. Its goal is to be unpleasant to look at and evoke a feeling of pity or sadness from the viewer. Taken into context, it tries to convince the viewer that the cause of these feelings, World War II, should never be repeated in history.

The clever dark shading in Hunger gives a sense of desperation and hopelessness. Because it touches on the negative emotions surrounding the war, Hunger is effective in creating some meaningful opposition towards it. While patriotism and purpose may sometimes make us feel obligated to fight in a war, it’s important to realize that it also brings the worst of humanity, and Shahn highlights this very effectively. The color scheme that he uses is relatively simple so as to not overwhelm the viewer with details, but the one portion of the painting that it does emphasize elicits a powerful response from the viewer. It’s easy to throw your support for something that you are not directly involved in, but once you experience it firsthand or gain the perspective of someone else’s experience, it becomes much more difficult.

This work created by Rachel Feinstein portrays a figure with a clock for a head, guns, and swords for arms and hands, and a mixture of weapons, booze, playing cards, among other objects for a body. According to the description posted to the side of the sculpture, it was originally a drawing by Rachel Feinstein’s son from when he was ten years old. Feinstein brings this drawing to life and gives this drawing meaning—something that is usually difficult to find in a ten-year-old’s sketches. The material used is powder-coated aluminum and vinyl. The colors chosen by Feinstein were selected to resemble a sketch—tieing the work back to its original source. At first, the piece seemed like an abstract mixture of various items. However, after examining the piece for a few moments, I began to realize why Feinstein—or her son—chose specifically the elements that he/she chose. Weapons represent violence, booze represents vulgarity, and cards represent gambling. The artist wanted to portray several vices that a person could inhabit. I believe that by having a clock for a head, which does actually tell the time accurately, it shows that the figure is currently stressed—maybe from racing against time to get an assignment done or just always feeling burdened by limited time. Because the figure is so stressed, it takes up these various vices represented throughout its body. Although I don’t think the sculpture is tied to politics, I do believe that it is connected to society. The figure stands for humanity—when we get stressed because of time constraints, we tend to act irrationally and may acquire bad habits as a result. Additionally, I think that Feinstein made the clock functioning to show that this is a serious problem and is occurring in our time. It seems like it is trying to show the viewer the potential negative implications that arise from stress and that you should try to avoid it. Another interpretation of this artwork can be that it shows us the inner thoughts of a ten-year-old. Because it was sketched by Feinstein’s son, this whole drawing and all/most of its aspects can be attributed to him. Maybe this is the way her son sees the world: a bunch of people racing against the clock, causing violence, acting vulgar, and gambling. Maybe Feinstein’s son has a bad view of humanity and this is how he represents it artistically. Feinstein may have wanted to represent this view to the world to show everyone what a delegate of the younger generation sees in society.

1. My chosen artwork, Personas, is not only breathtaking, but it also has a hidden meaning. The piece was created by a sculptor named George Segal and is of Abraham committing an act of sacrifice by killing his one and only son. It is supposed to represent Abraham’s faith and obedience to God. The sculpture is a perfect memesis of the moment when Abraham was about to murder his son with a blade. The son is kneeling down with his hands tied and ready to be taken by his father. In addition to the sculpture, there is also a painting illustrating the same exact moment. The details and facial expressions aren’t quite as accurate and deep as the sculpture, yet it represents the same thing. The lack of details and expression actually makes the killing seem more vulgar when compared to the sculpture. Overall, the combination of these two artworks played nicely together and I really like the way they interacted with each other by demonstrating the same event, yet in two phenomenally different ways.
2. Personas also has very deep political implications. The sculpture was created as a result of the Kent State University Shooting in 1970. In the shooting, the Ohio National Guard killed four and injured nine because of a mass protest against the Vietnam War. The United States government claimed the attack was unjustified which lead to more demonstrations across the country. Then, in 1978, George Segal was commissioned to make a memorial of the event. He decided that the Abraham sacrifice would be a perfect memorial for the tragic event. Both the shooting and the killing represented unwarranted death at the hands of the innocent. I believe it’s message shows that although these people were clearly innocent, life isn’t fair, and they had to move on from the tragedy.
3. There is a clear relationship between the 2 prior answers as well as a hidden relationship. The actual sculpture represents a sacrificial killing to demonstrate obedience. Similarly, the shooting illustrates death for no physical or tangible reason. Both the shooting and the sacrifice could have been avoided but the people chose to kill. This is a clear relationship. However, there is also another hidden one. Whether it be to respect God, to establish military dominance, or any other reason, any person who ends another’s life will always remember what they did, and must live with the internal consequences of their actions.

One piece of artwork that caught my eye was Jack Levine’s painting called Welcome Home. Levine’s work is represented in Edith Halpert’s gallery in the Jewish Museum. All the artwork in the gallery once belonged to Edith Halpert. She owned nearly five hundred pieces of art by modern artists and nearly five hundred pieces of American folk art. Halpert planned on donating her collection but died prior to making the proper arrangements. Her collection sold for $3.95 million dollars. It is believed that her collection was so successful because of her name associated with the pieces, this is known as “The Halpert Influence”. Levine’s artwork was one of the pieces in her collection. It is able to show the United States’ General and his partners in a negative way. The individuals appear snobby and superior than the waiter and other working-class individuals. The artwork was made by painting oils on a canvas. The painting has a resemblance to political cartoons in newspapers. The sharp edges and the size of their heads replicate cartoon styles. This piece of work is not a mimesis because it intends to deliver a message which resulted in Levine making unnatural details.

Jack Levine was a soldier who fought during World War II and he has said that this painting was not intended to insult the Army, it was a celebration of leaving it. This artwork was criticized and was called “Anti-American” by many. However, Halpert supported Levine and said, “The Levine painting is not anti-American. It’s just anti-pompous general.” Levine’s work is political and shows his view of the American government. He illustrates the arrogant demeanor of the individuals through their facial expressions. The painting shows who benefits from war and leaves out the American heroes who risked their lives. The figures in the paintings have distorted and exaggerated faces to convey the message of them being corrupt. They all appear to be unhappy even though they are being catered to their every need by the waiter. This shows that these individuals can never be satisfied and will never be happy. The artwork was initially located in a gallery in Moscow to represent America’s superiority. The painting however, conveyed the opposite message. It was criticized by the President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eisenhower was not impressed with the painting and he explained, “It looks like a lampoon more than art as far as I am concerned.” Eisenhower, who was investigating unamerican activities at the time in fear of communisim, was pressured to take action against the painting and Levine but decided not to.

This painting was able to show the greediness of individuals in government while also showing America’s freedom of speech. One can criticize the military respectfully without facing unfair repercussions. This painting was able to show certain individuals’ beliefs of American government. The cartoon aspect of the painting worked well because it related to more individuals. The characteristics of the people are entertaining and in a certain way can even be comedic. Levine was successful in connecting with the American citizens and even with people worldwide. The initial viewers in Moscow were even able to identify the U.S. General and his associates as greedy unpleasant individuals. Levine’s message was political and he was able to convey his message to his entire audience.

At the Jewish museum, Rachel Feinstein’s gallery show: “Maiden, Mother, Crone” stood out to me the most. Rachel Feinstein‘s art is based on the exploration of feminism ideas that emphasize on her fascination with opposition and conflict in the nature of cultural expression. Her work has been primarily focused on figurative sculptures centered on the female figure and placed importance in religion, fantasy, and fairy tales. In 2018, She borrowed a look from “Snow Angel” from Victoria’s Secret lingerie show to create the sculpture of Icicles which is made from polyester resin and pigment over foam with a wooden base. When thinking of Victoria’s Secret, we think of women empowerment and a place where women can proudly display their bodies and sexuality. In reality, all of Victoria’s Secret models have a well-formed, curvaceous, impossibly slim build and symmetrical body. Not every female being has such bodies. Feinstein’s sculpture, however, depicts a young female figure with a horrific, discolored, messy, lumpy and awkward appearance that represents her realistic approach to displaying a female being. Feinstein unpacks how women have been shaped through a public imagination and tried to institute the idea that women are not all perfect. They have their own flaws and deficiencies. 

This abstract work of art constitutes a concept of feminism and opposition. She draws attention to the idea that there is no fact without fiction and the concept of beauty and decay. The conflict of reality and expectations for women has sparked her interest in creating this work of art. Icicle is mostly made with black and white pigments with bits of brown and pink. The pink signifying the human flesh while the black and brown showing the rotting of skin. This shows that women under societal pressure and expectations have constantly changed their bodies to fit the standard causing decays. This sculpture also has little rings around her arms and legs. I believe those might demonstrate how women are trapped from their freedom and chained to the imaginations and fantasies of others. Icicle is a mimesis of women and at the same time an abstract art that presents the difference between reality and fiction. Feinstein tried to change the audience’s view of women through the display of this sculpture showing that gorgeous women do not need to have a gorgeous body to be gorgeous. We do not know what was behind the scenes of those that obtained Victoria’s Secret kind of body, therefore we should not judge females based on their body figures. Models are only part of the female population, they do not represent all female figures. Rachel Feinstein’s work was effectively showing the audience this concept.

Icicles  2018

When visiting the Jewish Museum, I was struck by the work in each exhibition, and I felt shocked that I had never been to the museum before given how much I liked the art on display. Particularly, I thought the Rachel Feinstein Show “Maiden, Mother, Crone” was really interesting and quite excellent. Not only was the technique Feinstein implemented into her work just exceptional but she also gave greater meaning to the work by creating dichotomies in her work. Each piece was very cohesive in nature, but certain elements of the works were contrasting. I think to antithesize these elements was very powerful, and it is what struck me most about her work. 

The piece I chose to analyze in greater depth is a portrait of an older woman dressed elegantly with a mirror as the background. This piece constitutes conceptual art because Feinstein uses it to comment on the issues women must face throughout their lives. As the blurb says, Feinstein’s work is meant to demonstrate three stages in a woman’s life, “maiden, mother, crone.” These stages signal a woman’s progression from youth to old age, and I believe this portrait is an amalgamation of all three stages. For instance, her fingers do not look like those of a human, and her skin isn’t life-like, which is where the “crone” identity comes in. At the same time, she is still dressed elegantly to maintain her poise and has many other feminine qualities. I think Feinstein is highlighting how women take on many identities throughout their lives and the fact that they are ever-changing causes a great deal of conflict. Moreover, the mirror in the background is a symbol meant to highlight the fact that vanity is fleeting in nature because the mirror is behind her as though her vanity is her past. 

This work is political in a way because it highlights the patriarchal structure of society that would force a woman to take on so many identities, which do cause conflict for a woman. I think having a mirror-like background is also interesting because it forces the viewer to see themselves in the piece of work. Consequently, the viewer is forced to put themselves in the shoes of the woman, or less figuratively, the viewer is forced to empathize with the woman. If the viewer is a man, the mirror juxtaposes the identity-conflict the painted woman is having with the man. If the viewer is a woman, however, the mirror would make the viewer reflect upon their own changing identity. For both genders, Feinstein wants the viewers to acknowledge the fact that women have to deal with this conflict, and therefore, confront the systemic issues that contribute to such. Universally, the acknowledgment of the unjust nature of society is the first step to then galvanizing people into action against these systemic issues.

“Personas”, a sculpture by George Segal, presents a conceptualization of the events at Kent State University in 1970. This work would be considered conceptual art as it emphasizes the idea of generational struggle through the use of biblical figures. The sculpture expresses the power that older people have over the younger generations, specifically “the power of life and death over their children to exercise love, compassion, and restraint.” The positioning of Abraham and Isaac is in service of this concept as a restrained Isaac is kneeling to Abraham, in which Abraham has power over him with a weapon in hand. This artwork creates innovations in the connection between the art itself and the reason for its production. Looking at the Kent State situation from the perspective of generational power creates a new dynamic between the students protesting the Vietnam War and the military’s response. The piece itself is a mimesis, as it was based on an episode from the Hebrew Bible.

This work is political in the sense of its opposition to the Vietnam War. It clearly expresses that the military response projects this idea of generational power, something that is not depicted as positive by the sculpture. The sculpture portrays the message that the older generations have this power over the younger generations, especially in terms of life and death. During the events at Kent State, four people were killed and nine others were wounded. Segal used this biblical allegory to materialize his opposition. I think this piece attempts to effect a change in the world by conveying this striking scene from the Hebrew Bible, showing that this same demand for obedience and faith in which the scene holds and which took place at Kent State is intrinsically toxic; no one should lose their life because it is in another’s power to take it.

Segal’s expression through this sculpture is an effective way of communicating with the world. The positioning of the people emphasizes his message while also evokes a sense of emotion from the viewer, something that may not have been as effective if the artwork was depicted solely on paper. The sheer size of the sculpture puts the events into perspective, making it more realistic and therefore connecting the viewer to the art as well as the time, even though it was created in 1970. The message is universal to all periods, as generational power still holds in some ways.

The artwork that I chose was Mr. Time by Rachel Feinstein. According to the plaque beside the sculpture, Mr. Time was based on a drawing the artist’s son, Francis Currin, made when he was ten years old. It’s a large human-sized sculpture that still maintains the idea and feeling of being hand-drawn. I feel as though it constitutes conceptual art because there are many different takeaways with the sculpture; also, the sculpture itself is made from non-traditional, “found materials”. This artwork is unique because you could make the argument that the sculpture is mimesis because it is an imitation of Feinstein’s son’s drawing but that the idea behind the art (both the drawing and the sculpture) is very clearly abstract. I think the idea of the sculpture is how as an adult (and, more importantly, a parent) there is never enough time to do anything that you need or want to do. If you look closely at what Mr. Time’s body is made of, you’ll notice playing cards, die, guns, money, wine glasses, beer, and sheets of paper. I think this a statement about how there never seems to be enough time in a day and the stress that comes from that.  Mr. Time’s body is made up of these items, almost as a way of drawing attention to the self-destructive ways in which people may attempt to combat that stress (gambling, drinking). What the sculpture is trying to say, through the imagery of the working clock serving as the head, is that even when we find a way to forget about our obligations and de-stress, the obligations that we tried to ignore haven’t gone anywhere, Time hasn’t stopped and the world hasn’t stopped turning.

I think the sculpture is trying to make the viewer assess and think about time and how they spend theirs. I think it wants the viewer to stop and reflect on their obligations and how they fulfill them (or avoid them). In a sense, it forces the reader to think about the way they spend their day and, more abstractly, how they spend their time. Mr. Time’s message is that time doesn’t stop ticking, no matter how much you may try to avoid or ignore that fact; time is constantly moving forward and that fact isn’t changed by whether or not you spend it doing what you need to or procrastinating. Feinstein wants viewers to do some introspection and be more cognizant of how they’re spending their time. I think having a working clock serving a function in the sculpture helps to portray the idea of time being important. It’s the head, the face of Mr. Time; the clock is placed as being above, literally and figuratively, everything else in the sculpture. The fact that it is a working clock, as well, helps to drive home the purpose of the sculpture. During an initial cursory glance, you don’t realize that the clock is ticking, until you look more closely and pay attention to the artwork, which is an apt metaphor when you consider how many people live their lives. They don’t realize how much time they’ve spent (or wasted) until they look more closely at their lives and the world around them.

Crucifixion by Rachel Feinstein 2003

A piece of art that drew my eye during our Jewish Museum visit was Crucifixion by Rachel Feinstein. Made in 2003, this was the first piece Feinstein made after witnessing the  September 11 attacks from her apartment window. This piece consists of a child-project-like crucifixion scene made from sheets of plywood and paper like material. Usually, crucifixion sculptures and paintings are intricate and detailed. They depict Jesus’s plight in great detail: from his facial features to the disciples around him. Feinstein went another direction to an almost universal scene. She did not show any faces and instead vaguely sculpted the bodies of the people involved. 

Furthermore, this piece is clearly a mimesis of the original crucifixion. The abstraction of this scene blends the line between reality and fantasy. The original crucifixion and the events that occured after are a mixture of reality and possible fantasy passed down through word of mouth and “historical documents”. It is hard to tell what exactly happened during this event but it certainly happened.

The Crucifixion by Pietro Lorenzett 1340 (an example of a typical Crucifixion artwork)

Feinstein highlights this mystery by not sculpting the faces of the people involved in the scene and only showing a few symbols. Jesus’s crown of thorns is clearly visible and his extremities are both punched through with nails. A light paper material segments over his chest: an imitation of his ribs. These few symbols highlight Jesus’s sacrifice more than any other symbols can, hence why Feinstein could not include his face and still get the message across. This piece shows the pain and betrayal Jesus felt while he died for our sins. The typical crucifixion scene highlights this sacrifice with rich paint and gold auras around Jesus and his disciples. The simplicity of this piece humanizes Jesus but also his sacrifice becomes less of a religious teaching but more a symbol for human action.

This theme is important because most likely Feinstein’s trust in human character had faded in the years this was made. Since this piece was the first she made and showed since 9/11, Feinstein most likely tried to remind her audience of great sacrifice that occurred years ago. There is very little religious aspects in the piece due to the abstraction and the mysterious element. Instead, Feinstein focuses on the meaning the crucifiction: a sacrifice for the failures and sinful nature of humans. The 9/11 attack caused so much suffering and pain, a huge sin committed against innocent American citizens. Feinstein’s crucifixion scene is a reminder to her audience of the importance of compassion

Our visit to the Jewish Museum last Tuesday was both fascinating and exciting. I had visited this museum years ago as a young child, but it was a totally different experience this time around, since I was a lot older and had a much better understanding of politics and culture. 

The piece that stood out most to me was Deborah Kass’ OY/YO bright yellow sculpture on the third floor, the same one we saw at the entrance to the Brooklyn Museum. Deborah Kass is a famous Jewish lesbian artist who is known for her fight for equality and feminism through her art. According to AM New York, Kass notably said, “When I created OY/YO, the American promise of equality and fairness was writ in the most diverse administration ever, working to make the country a better place for all.” The first thing I noticed about this sculpture is that there is a dual meaning to it: it reads “oy” on one side and “yo” on the other. This is interesting, because “oy” is a Yiddish word that is “used especially to express exasperation or dismay,” according to Merriam-Webster. Having heard my grandparents speak Yiddish occasionally instead of Russian, the only word that I understood was “oy”. It’s such an easy word to remember, yet it means so much. If someone says “oy”, you know something unpleasant either happened or is currently happening. It seems that over time, people of so many other cultures have begun using the word “oy”, to the point that it has become a nearly universal expression of shock or unhappiness. Meanwhile, the word “yo” is a term popular among youth in urban areas around our nation. “Yo” is used as an informal greeting and is especially popular within the African-American and Latin-American communities. In fact, “yo” even means “I” in Spanish, a widely-spoken language within New York City and the entire nation. 

The OY/YO sculpture constitutes conceptual art because it expresses the two words “oy” and “yo” from just one sculpture. In my opinion, there is no significance between the color or material of the sculpture and the concept it is meant to portray. It is an abstract work of art and is not a mimesis of anything in particular. One essential characteristic of the sculpture is that it resembles the famous LOVE sculpture, which is an iconic symbol of New York, among other U.S. cities. Nevertheless, the sculpture has a special significance in the Jewish Museum, since “oy” is a popular Yiddish phrase. Moreover, it makes sense that the OY/YO sculpture is in New York City, since Deborah Kass is a native New Yorker and this concept is especially relevant in our city. 

Kass tries to show that despite being a divided group of people, we are more similar than we realize and we are all people. She derives two very different cultural words from the same two letters that can be read in either direction. Her work is certainly political and it was made at a time when America was changing for the better. President Obama showed our nation that diversity is possible, great, and essential, and we must all value each other. People have a tendency to judge one another based on race and ethnicity, but this should not be the case. Just because someone has a different color of skin or speaks another language than you, it doesn’t mean that this person is any different than you. We are all guilty of cultural misunderstanding, so Kass tries to change that and remind us of that. She has an important call to action to embrace one another’s differences and learn about each other’s cultures. This is essential at a time when racism is still very prevalent and must not be allowed. In fact, New York City is the perfect place for this work of art, because we are a melting pot of so many different cultures and types of people. Furthermore, if we choose to focus our attention particularly on the African-American and Jewish communities in our city, we can see that although the two groups are very different and have had racial tensions in the past, they are more similar than they may realize and should do everything in their power to understand and respect each other.