Category: BLOG POST 9 (Page 2 of 2)

General Information: Adam and Eve by Rachel Feinstein in 2007

This sculpture of Adam and Eve highlights an underlying premise: feminism through religious lens. The artwork itself is very mesmerizing, utilizing stained wood to depict a literal tree, with its canopy seamlessly transitioning from nature to human life. The fluid nature of the wood connects the set pieces of this sculpture from top to bottom, adding an appealing aesthetic to the eye. This is achieved by the relatively abstract artistic style used to depict this loose mimesis of the Adam and Eve in the Bible. However, while the physical form of this wooden art piece is breathtaking, the real takeaway lies within its concept. The medium of stained wood serves to contextualize this. Even at the dawn of humankind, in a time when marble or steel did not exist, in a time where trees graced the land amongst nature, men were implied superior to women.

In a traditional biblical reading, Adam is the first man and Eve is the first woman. However, gender biases are clearly distinguished within the Bible. This ranges from Eve being the direct cause of the fall of the Garden of Eden to Eve being the second to be formed–created from the rib of Adam. Feinstein depicts an Adam and Eve on equal standing, with their bodies intertwined to represent this equality. Although the notion of being created from a rib of Adam can be seen as symbolic of their relationship as companions, with Eve literally made to be at Adam’s side eternally, this concept can also imply that Eve herself is not a “whole” person, designated to be a part of Adam and reliant on him since he was the catalyst for the creation of her being. Having Adam and Eve intertwined more clearly demonstrates their equal status as humans while maintaining their companionship. Furthermore, Eve serves as the main focus of the overall sculpture, evident in her position at the center and her direct link to the nature that surrounds them. This linkage to her surrounding coupled with her prominent placement could also suggest that the equality of man and woman as a right is only natural, about as natural as the tree above them.

The combination of this sculpture pushing for women equality and Rachel Feinstein’s status as a woman artist, which is a rarity among artists who portray religious embodiments, pushes this feminist agenda in the art world within a unique platform. She doesn’t push for the type of feminism that has received a negative stigma in recent news, but one advocating for genuine equality for both genders in order to have a world as beautiful and elegant as this sculpture.

The art piece I chose to do my blog post on is called Ore to Iron. The piece was developed in 1953 by the artist Charles Sheeler after his visit to a steel plant in Pittsburgh. The artist and photographer mainly focused on technology and the impact that comes with it. Most of his work was actually sponsored and based on factories from Ford Motors Co. and so most of the paintings highlight the industry under a positive light. As previously stated, since the painting is based on a steel plant Sheeler had seen, it is a mimesis, but Sheeler through the painting showed much more than a basic representation of a factory, rather showed the benefits and harms of industrialization. I believe the painting Ore to Iron to be a work of conceptual art because it shows the beauty and dismay that comes with industrialization and technological advancements. Furthermore, the artist had shown the beauty of technology through intriguing color schemes and overlapping patterns. Adding on, based on colors and shading, there are multiple loops and swirls of factory stairs and buildings. There is also one overall big swirl and factory staircase, which can be seen through the light blue colors. What the artist wanted to show through all these connected buildings and the overlapping colors is how interconnected the factory system has made society. When he had worked for Ford Motors Co. he loved to show how the car industry had made the world easier to travel and how it made the world a smaller place. I think the color scheme and the coinciding stairs were a great way to show the ever more intertwined world because the painting does make it seem like there are a few worlds colliding in it. In the painting, you cannot tell where one staircase begins and another one ends. Also what I found very interesting is that in almost all of Charles Sheeler’s work, there are no people. There is not much information about why he did not draw people, so I left it up to my interpretation as to figure out this artistic choice. Most likely he wanted to separate industry from people and technology from humankind. Also by not showing people, I believe the artist somehow highlighted the negative aspects of the factory system.  I interpreted the stylistic choice as him maybe showing that the factory system can be devoid of human emotions and lack the human intricacy that can go into making a hand made product. Also I believe it to show how the factory system and assembly line focuses on automation and speed rather than care and individualism that used to go into merchandise.

Furthermore, I do believe this art piece to be political and have a political statement. Since Charles Sheeler mainly worked for a big factory company, he focused on the good that comes with industrialization. This good that comes with industrialization can also be seen from the top of the staircases. In the painting, the stairs go up to the top of the painting and from the right-hand corner they look like they continue to go past the edge of the painting. Sheeler said his influences for making the stairs so high were the high rise buildings of New York and the new heights technology could take us. Obviously, Sheeler wanted to show the benefits of the factory system, since he was hired by a company which was built on making factories, and the political statement of the work was clearly the new heights factories and technology would take us. 

The conceptual and political messages are very clearly similar in that they show the impact industrialization has on the world, but what I found so interesting is how relevant it is to our society today. I think the aspect of the painting which has the most profound impact on the viewer is that even though the art piece was created in 1953 it is surprisingly pertinent to our time. The world like in the painting has become more interconnected and as the painting accidentally predicted the industrial world has become more automated and involves less human interaction. The painting although it does represent a factory that Sheeler had seen, it could easily be one of today’s with their huge labyrinth of staircases and complicated designs. Also, the artist was right about technology reaching new heights because well, it really has and reached points that were never thought to be possible. Additionally, on the assignment itself, I know the blog post should have been 400-500 words, but I was really struggling to shorten it down since there is a lot of useful information and I thought a lot of it was necessary for truly understanding the logic behind the work. Also, it is the last blog post so it should be an extensive blog post. 

During my time at the Jewish Museum, I was particularly fascinated with Rachel Feinstein’s gallery. Her artwork reflects her daring personality, creativity, and feminist ideals. One artwork that really caught my eyes from her exhibition was a statue called Mr. Time. Like many of her other sculptures, Mr. Time is a representation of life, imperfections, and women empowerment.

Mr. Time was made in 2015 and Rachel Feinstein created this sculpture with powder-coated aluminum, vinyl, and a working clock. She drew inspiration from her son, Francis Currin, who made it when he was ten years old. This artwork was also not the original piece. It went through a transformation from a small pencil drawing to a human-scale, three-dimensional metal object.

At first glance, I thought that Feinstein was trying to illustrate this ambiguous concept of time with this statue. Since time was a concept created by human beings, Rachel Feinstein needed to use human-like or human-made objects to represent time. Thus, I believe the clock was used as the head of the statue because both time and the clock to measure time were both invented by humans. But being a feminist, Feinstein using a masculine figure to identify time captivated me. I wondered why is time a male and why is time in the form of a human. Walking around the exhibit, I saw the other artworks from Feinstein and a brief synopsis about her on the wall. I slowly began to understand Rachel Feinstein’s meaning in her abstract artwork. The statue not only had a clock as the head, but its whole body had guns, knives, swords, and letters with hearts all over. The way I see it, Feinstein is trying to define toxic masculinity through time. Time in this artwork would be history. Hence, throughout history, men only knew violence during the time of swords and knives, and later on when guns were invented. The love letters are probably what males thought would be something they would receive in return for exemplifying their masculinity through war and chaos. Or it could be love letters to the family of those males who died from conflicts involving those knives and guns. I believe both meanings involve some sort of conflict or bloodshed because violence has always been part of human history.

Feinstein probably wanted to suggest that toxic masculinity has led to nothing but the destruction of either females, family, or even all human beings. What appeared like a child’s drawing animated into a symbol for feminism and anti-violence. One could say it could be a sign of the anti-gun movement. For any of these reasons, the abstract concept of time would always be there. And it will illustrate how some things never change no matter how much time has passed.

General Information: Hard Sweetness, from the Stroke series by Joan Snyder was made in 1971. Its medium is oil, acrylic, and enamel on canvas

Hard Sweetness is one of Joan Snyder’s Stroke paintings in which personal and political struggles and decisions are registered. Snyder began making art in the late 1960s, a time when men dominated the art world. Her soft stains, light strokes, and light colors give this painting a feminine touch. However, when looked at as a whole, it gives more of a masculine look because of the way it’s put together with thicker strokes as your eye progresses from the center outwards. The idea behind this painting is that it does not matter whether the artist is male or female; art is art and is beautiful either way. The medium used in this painting is oil, acrylic, and enamel on a white canvas. The bold, white canvas is supposed to show the masculine side of the painting and the oil, acrylic, and enamel used adds the feminine touch. The oil and enamel almost make the painting flow and help your eyes move around, enabling you to take out the deeper meaning behind this painting.

The description said, “Snyder blurs the distinction between the senses of sight, taste and perhaps even sound and smell.” The random strokes and patterns on this painting do not appeal to one sense. They blur the distinction between them because this painting is not about what appeals to you or what it makes you feel; it is a strong statement made by the artist. She uses art as an intermediary to convey her opinion on feminism and expressionism. The art world was dominated by men, but why? Females also had the same capability and talent of making eye-catching and heart-touching art. They should also have a right to expressionism through their art. She wanted to show the world that females are talented artists through a work of art, and that is what I love most about this painting.

The medium plays a key role in portraying the message to the viewer. As I stated before, the canvas creates a masculine side to this painting while the materials used on the canvas such as the oil and enamel add the feminine side. When these two come together, they create the beautiful artwork that we see. This artwork distinctly catches the attention of the viewer, but as the viewer’s eye moves around, they realize that this painting is not merely for attraction; it holds a deeper meaning. Without the feminine and masculine side of this painting, the painting wouldn’t be as beautiful as it is at the moment, just like without male and female artists, art won’t be as beautiful.

This is a watercolor named In the Courtroom Cage. It was created by Ben Shahn in 1931-32; he was a Jewish immigrant painter, originally from Lithuania. Ben Shahn’s main focus fell on creating narrative art that highlighted social and political justice, or injustice in most cases. He was born into an Orthodox Jewish family, and during his childhood Shahn witnessed both anti-Semitism and political persecution. With this, he always stood amongst the crowds to fight for justice and equality. Initially, I was grabbed by another artwork, Hunger also by Ben Shahn, simply because of the positioning of the works. Hunger was a huge painting that dominated its area, while In the Courtroom Cage was rather small and at a higher eye level for me. Yet, the original and rather unusual appearance of this artwork caught my interest more. 

Shahn’s views on life led him to the creation of the series The Passion of Sacco and Vanzetti. This collection consisted of twenty- three gouaches one of which was In the Courtroom Cage. The series illustrates parts of the trial as well as the execution of two Italian immigrants, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti. The watercolor In the Courtroom Cage, in particular, is a mimesis of a press photograph of the two men in the prisoner’s dock with Sacco’s wife, Rosina, on the other side of the cage. The entire series, including this artwork, is conceptual art with a political view. It was important for Shahn to depict the injustice that Sacco and Vanzetti were experiencing. This, in fact, was one of the most controversial trials.  At the time the watercolor was created, great controversy was in the air.  Many sided with Sacco and Vanzetti, and therefore tried to prove that the guilty verdict was unfair. The theory held that the men were punished for being anarchists as well as the political views of this era. 

This watercolor was done with a certain perspective in mind. As the viewer looks at this painting it seems as though he/she is part of the scene. It was created from such a perspective that you are placed in that exact moment, even though this was done from a photograph. To elaborate, Shahn wanted to show how important this issue is to him, and he was not afraid to do so, regardless of the fact that the government was against such ideas. As for the technique, while I view this to be a mimesis, it is not quite realistic. The subjects do not look in proportion to each other, just as the facial features look too cartoon-like. With that, it seems as though Shahn completed this in a hurry and it resembles more of a sketch. While shading and highlighting are present in the watercolor, they look more abstract and unrealistic. For example, the hat has too much highlighting, giving it more of a metallic appearance; the faces have too much shading. Nonetheless, I believe Shahn did this on purpose; he wanted to create a sketch effect, as if he was there when this was happening. This emphasizes the importance that this injustice had for Shahn, and characterizes him as a social realist. 

“Welcome Home” by Jack Levine

The artwork that I chose to analyze is titled “Welcome Home”. It was painted by American painter Jack Levine circa 1946. Jack Levine was best known for his satirical and comical representations of politicians, policemen, and other authoritative figures. The time period in which he created his greatest works was known as the period of social realism, and this was especially reflected in this work. The term social realism is used to describe pieces of work that bring attention to the socio-political struggles of the middle class in order to criticize the authority that causes these injustices. 

“Welcome Home” caught my eye particularly because of Levine’s cartoon painting style. In the piece, we are shown a glimpse of a dinner party from a bird’s eye view. Three men and a woman are seen dining, and each seems to be dissatisfied with what they are being served. The woman’s head is elongated, particularly to emphasize her puckered, unhappy demeanor, and the inflated, bald heads of the men compliment their bulging stomachs.

This painting is a great example of conceptual art. The foolish, glutenous way that Levine portrays the general in particular is meant to jab at the arrogance of US military generals. He is the only subject in this painting who has his napkin tucked into his collar, symbolizing his greed for more food. Furthermore, the painting’s message attempts to sympathize with working class Americans from the depiction of the waiter on the right side of the painting. The waiter does not hold as high of a distinction compared to the general and his fellow comrades; however, he is clearly doing his best to please the group with his services, but he is given no attention. This is likely to stir frustration within any viewer of this painting who can relate to the waiter’s circumstances. This is a mimesis of a dinner party scene, but Levine purposefully draws the figures in a comic-like fashion to belittle authority.

The material expression of Jack Levine’s message has the power to effectively communicate with the viewer. In particular, the way that Levine messily depicts the figures in dinner scene mirrors the grubby nature of a greedy eater. It makes the viewer feel disgusted at the general and his comrades, reflecting the emotions Levine wants to stir towards authority in general. Furthermore, Levine was purposeful when he painted the waiter; his full body is shown, as opposed to only the top halves of the guests, and he is dressed in an emerald green suit. We are drawn to the waiter because of the bright color of his garb and the wholeness of his figure, yet the guests are not. This portrays an underlying message of authority’s ignorance towards the working class and being narrowly focused on their own personal gain through the exploitation of others’ hard efforts..

This painting sparked a lot of controversy in the political world. The painting was originally shown in the American National Exhibition in Moscow in 1956. The event was meant to advertise the prosperity of the American people in the 1950s and flaunt American superiority to the Soviets in Moscow. However, the choice to enter this painting into the exhibition was a poor one; many attendees of the event had “records of affiliations with Communist fronts and causes” and the reputation of America was ridiculed. When Dwight D. Eisenhower interfered and regarded the painting as “lampoon more than art,” Edith Halpert, American art dealer, fought back, claiming that this painting merely ridiculed the image of arrogant, greedy generals, not America’s generals in particular. Interestingly enough, Halpert was born in Ukraine and was fluent in the Russian language, gaining her popularity in the Soviet Union. She used this and Levine’s painting to show the world that America is the land of the free because it allows its artists to create whatever work they want to, no matter what message it embodies. Thus, despite its rocky beginning, “Welcome Home” became an icon of American freedom.

General Information: Made in the year 2000 using wood, epoxy resin, polymer clay, plaster, enamel paint, and gold leaf.

Fat Friend By Mark Fletcher and Tobias Meyer

When viewing Fat Friend by Mark Fletcher and Tobias Meyer, the viewer is starstruck by the piece itself. But, instead of analyzing the details hidden throughout the work of art, one begins to wonder what it all means. The provocative title of the artwork “Fat Friend”, also adds to the rush of finding out what it all truly means, thus this work entirely constitutes conceptual art.

Fat Friend By Mark Fletcher and Tobias Meyer

After much thought and internal debate, the message or idea the artwork is trying to express is the health effects of being overweight and or obese. The artwork expresses this idea by abstractly implementing organs affected by obesity and being overweight, into the artwork. When doing a 360° look around the artwork, one may notice that pieces of the artwork resemble human organs. The back of the artwork has a gigantic heart shaped piece made out of polymer clay and plaster. This enlarged heart may symbolize the actual condition that affects people in the real world. Also, one of the main causes of having an enlarged heart is high blood pressure or coronary artery disease. Both of these are common side effects of being overweight and or obese. There are also two gold leaf covered pieces that puncture the enlarged heart. These pieces resemble veins or arteries. One can assume that the reason they are gold is because they mimic clogged veins or arteries. Clogged veins or arteries contain the build-up of fats, cholesterol, and other substances. This build up does mimic a yellowish, gold like color. 

Fat Friend By Mark Fletcher and Tobias Meyer

There are also two large gold like pieces that resemble wings but may as well be mimicking hyperinflated lungs. Though overweightness and obesity don’t directly cause hyperinflated lungs, they do lead to other pulmonary illnesses such as difficulty in breathing and hypoventilation. Lastly, there is also a pink gut like piece that sits at the base of the artwork. The gut is also enlarged and may point to the illness of Abdominal distension, that is again caused by overweightness and obesity. All in all, the artwork itself is a mimesis of human organs that can be affected by being “fat” or overweight. Though the title may be offensive to some, the artwork itself does highlight the repercussions of a lifestyle where health isn’t the main concern.

Fat Friend By Mark Fletcher and Tobias Meyer

The artwork isn’t inherently political but it does hold quite a bold message. Through the pieces that represent organs affected by overweightness and or obesity, the artwork tries to show the horrors of these illnesses in an abstract way. The message is most likely to live a healthy life, to be on a diet, and to exercise. The way in which it’s trying to effect a change in the viewer is by making them understand why certain elements of the artwork are the way they are. The viewer will question why the heart and lungs are so enlarged and the viewer will wonder what the gold objects piercing the heart mean. Through contemplating the purpose of each piece, the viewer will arrive at the message, which is again to be mindful of the effects of overweightness and obesity and to strive to live a healthy life.

Fat Friend By Mark Fletcher and Tobias Meyer

The idea the artwork posses and the message it holds are quite similar. However, The way the artwork expresses the idea and message may not be the most efficient. The artwork is a little too abstract and can take on an entirely different meaning very easily. If it weren’t for the title of the artwork, “Fat Friend”, it would’ve been really hard to decode what the meaning and purpose of the art work is. Furthermore, only if the viewer is intrigued enough by the abstractness of the piece, they will be able to understand what the artwork is trying to communicate due to the drive of curiosity.  All in all, Fat Friend by Mark Fletcher and Tobias Meyer is an extremely complex and intriguing piece of art and can be very fun to decode.

Note: Unfortunately, the post is a little over the word count but there were just too many details to explain and discuss. Hope this isn’t too much, sorry!

The artwork above is “Sedar” created by Nicole Eisenman in 2010. This work constitutes conceptual art because it takes a traditional idea and presenting it in a fashion that take precedence over traditional aesthetic. The painting depicts a family Passover gathering. At the bottom centered was a pair of fleshly pink hands in a similar fashion to the two grotesque individuals in a distorted manner. In an interview, Eisenman reveals that the hands are those of her father, sitting at the closed end of the table, while her mother sits at the other end. From my point of view, the hands also acted as “our” hands. It is an invitation to be a part of this ritual or maybe even of the family. This artwork is a mimesis as it imitates a realistic event through an unconventional form. The members of the artist’s family are painted with experimental shades such as gray or orange for skin color. There are the imaginary figures, who as aforementioned are more monstrous with a sense of affection and humor at the same time. The medium was oil on canvas and Eisenman took advantage of it to play with the textures and colors in this painting. As the figures get closer to the viewer, the texture of the painting changes. The brilliant colors and skillfully portrayed faces become dissonant. Sloppy paint strokes are trickling from the hair with disfigured eyes. Despite the disturbing turn, we can sense familiarity from the open bottles of wine, half-eaten platter at the center of the table with bitter herbs, charoset, charred egg, lamb bone, and orange, and of course, the Haggadot. We would typically imagine enjoyment and pleasure as this group of dinner guests drink and socialize. However, this painting illustrates a different range of feelings in the room. Some people might be engaged and attentive while others look withdrawn or bored. Not to mention the detail with “our” hands that are breaking matzah during the reading of the Haggadah. Though the message is not political, it builds the idea of loneliness, boredom, and awkwardness that can be felt when surrounded by relatives. It denies any form of desire. The distorted contrasted with the charming expresses interest and boredom and portrays a familiar dinner scene with family in a bold way. Sedar’s material expression of Eisenman’s concept effectively captures both a physical and emotional portrait of the people in her paintings. The material allows her to manipulate a change of emotions and create drastic differences between the figures.

The menorah in the photo is unique in more ways than just its artistic appearance. The meaning behind this menorah was partially intended by the artist, but today, it carries a much stronger message. The menorah is made from carved wood. A material not usually used for something that would hold a wick and a flame. Because of the jewish tradition, the menorah has nine candle holders; eight are for each day of Chanukah, and the ninth is to hold the one that lights the rest, which is usually raised a little. Thus, it’s a mimesis of a kosher menorah with all the identifiably-traditional characteristics; however, it’s artistic style and carvings give the menorah it’s own signature look. Behind the menorah is a decorative star of David, and Hebrew biblical text that means “who is like you, O’lord, among the celestials?”. Both the symbol and the text have meaning beyond the obvious.

Hanukkah Lamp

This Hanukkah lamp or menorah, is a rare example of Jewish ceremonial art created during the Holocaust, in 1942. The menorah was made by Arnold Zadikow who was a sculptor and architect and Leopold Hecht, who stole the wood from Nazis in the camp. They were both deported to Theresienstadt, a concentration camp located thirty miles from Prague. Arnold was able to create the menorah in secret since he was assigned to work at the Lautsch Workshop, which made decorative arts for the Nazis. The menorah was made for the children in the camp as a symbol of hope. All jewish practice was outlawed in the camp, and if anyone was caught with the menorah people would be shot on the spot. However, during the eight nights of Chanukah, for three years Jewish children in the camp would light this menorah and sliver of hope would appear in their minds. The menorah symbolizes heroism and sacrifice at its most extreme. Today, this menorah continues to impact the way people celebrate Hanukkah. Jews from all over the world recognize the privilege of freedom and the sacrifice that people made to continue their traditions. 

The Hebrew inscription is very specific to the time and the overall message that the menorah conveys. In a time of desperation and pain, many Jews of Theresienstadt were still strong in their faith and traditions. The wood is also an ironic symbol of freedom. This is the same wood that the prison barracks were built in the camps. Additionally, despite the star of David being a racist symbol that jews had to wear over their clothes during the war, the Jews still embraced the symbol as if to ignore this harrowing period in time. Over time, this menorah could be mistaken for an ordinary menorah, albeit the weird material choice; however, with enough background it becomes clear that the wood, the star, the letter carvings, and the menorah as a whole is something much more symbolic than practical.