In my previous post about my pre-MOMA thoughts and ideas, I wrote about how Berger and Barnet teach us to examine art from more than one perspective. I wrote about how, at the MOMA, I would look at not only the art’s subjects but also at the structure of the piece as well, as the story of the artist behind the artwork.
To be honest, I had not visited an art gallery or art museum since middle school and frankly, I do not find much excitement in visiting art exhibitions. For the purpose of this class and assignment however, I put away those thoughts and entered the MOMA with a genuine curiosity for seeing the exhibitions because I wanted to know if Berger and Barnet’s writings would actually change the way I view art. After reading through my research about Impressionism (its time period and the artists who were associated with the movement) I felt like I had a pretty good idea of what type of pieces I needed to focus on when I got to the MOMA – paintings with brighter colors, shorter strokes, unblended colors, and more depictions of the rural and suburban landscapes.
When I arrived to the 5th floor of the museum, I was greeted by wall that was covered by the Campbell’s Soup Art that stood at the entrance of the Café. I then noticed, as I stood in front of the Campbell’s Soup, that to my left, there was a painting that must have been as long as me that was hanging on the empty white wall by the elevators. I knew then and there, before I had even looked at anything else, that the painting would stand out to me and that I would choose that piece to analyze. That painting there was Hide-and-Seek by Pavel Tchelitchew, created in 1940-1942. The other painting that I chose to analyze was Evening, Honfleur, painted by Georges-Pierre Seurat in 1886.
For each piece that I looked at, I purposely chose not to look at the description for the artwork until I had analyzed it and had come up with a story for the work myself. I did this so I would look at the painting in itself since “painting are reproduced with words around them”, as Berger says in his Ways of Seeing. Words that came to my mind when I stood back from the Hide-and-Seek painting all had dark connotations, like hellish, fire, burning, children, horror story, ghostly, distorted, twisted, helpless. Something about the juxtaposition of the bright yellows, oranges and greens against the sullen browns, moldy greens and bloody reds prompted me to walk closer to the painting and examine each of the colors in detail. When I closed my distance from the piece, I noticed images that I previously was not able to see. In the “leaves” and branches of the tree, there were numerous faded faces of children; from the thinner branches, it appears as if a colony of babies were climbing from the blur of leaves, into the mist of the lighter blue background. In the veins of one child’s face, there was a faint dandelion that served as a pedestal for another child. In the mud-colored trunk, by the girl who seemed to be clinging on to the base of the tree, I spotted the fingers of another child, which were defined by a mix of pale green, blue, red and orange. After reading the description about how the painting “presents an apocalyptic vision of the childhood game of Hide-and-Seek during World War II”, I thought back about Berger’s line; he was right, my interpretation and analysis fit the description and purpose of the piece, but knowing that the painting depicted the time of World War II opened up my understanding of the piece so much more.
In Evening, Honfleur, the colors used were completely different from those of Hide-and-Seek. The scene shown was a lot more calm, relaxed, dreamy and soothing. What amazed me about this painting was how Seurat put together the piece. He must have used millions of little dots in both the actual painting and the frame itself. Rather than thinking about the scene depicted, I actually thought more about Seurat and the time he spent on creating the piece; I could imagine him sitting at his desk carefully placing the specks of color onto the empty canvas. Standing up close, I noticed the different textures of paint strokes and how you could tell which parts of the piece he painted first because some dots were thicker from the heavier clumps of paint than the others. Up close, you could also see the pattern of yellow, orange, blue and white in the sky that seemed to just be light blue from afar.
My reading of Barnet and Berger’s writings definitely affected my viewing of the MOMA exhibition. I allowed myself to look at the pieces of artworks from a few distances to see them from different angles because I’ve learned that analyzing the picture from ten feet away and analyzing a small section of the piece from a few inches away changes the entire feel of the artwork. I chose these two pieces because of their perfect fit to the descriptions and because they both held so many details that would be hidden if you only looked at them from afar. After my trip to the MOMA, I realized that my “non-existing” understandings for paintings and sculptures actually did exist – it was a matter of learning to think beyond the painting itself that allowed me to better interpret and appreciate art.
-Winnie Yu (Blog A)
I chose to respond to Winnie’s post because of the contrast in our perspective of visiting museums. I’ve personally always loved going to the museum. It was a rather superficial pleasure for me, surrounding myself with beauty. What Berger in Ways of Seeing gave me was not the ability to love art, but the tools and mind-set to appreciate and analyze it. Rather than spending a few seconds in front of a painting that struck me, I took the time to let my eyes roam across the canvas, taking in everything from the very texture of the painting to the detail-work on the frame. I always used to have the notion that my opinion on a painting was wrong; that the words of the art gurus and experts were written in stone. Berger even says that “the majority take it as axiomatic that the museums are full of holy relics which refer to a mystery which excludes them: the mystery of unaccountable wealth” (Berger 24). Looking back, I almost found my previous thoughts laughable. The artist is the only person who could tell us what he intended when he made his piece; others can only interpret what they see. One hundred people can look at a single painting and each one have a separate, unique opinion. Everyone is unique; from background to personality to lifestyle, these things influence how people see and interpret not only art, but life itself.
When looking at the paintings in the Post-Impressionism hall, I was struck by how different the paintings were from one another. When one thinks of an art movement, one assumes that all the art from that era would have certain predominant, reoccurring characteristics. From the sharp, clean lines of Henri Rousseau to the pointillism of Georges Seurat, each and every artist saw and interpreted the world in different ways. It really cemented the idea in my mind that art is not created for the sake of creation; it is the product of that artist’s blood, sweat and tears. An art piece tells a tale about a portion of an artist’s lifetime; the emotions, the opinions and the very life he lead. I think that idea is perhaps the most important thing I took out of the work of Berger; that art isn’t something that has always been there or something that came to existence out of nothingness. “…Image are man-made” (9).
The two paintings I chose as the focus of my first paper are Georges Seurat Evening, Honfleur (1886) and Claude Monet’s Agapanthus (1914-26). Seurat was a Post-Impressionist who worked with the idea of pointillism, or placing thousands of strokes of color in patterns so that the end product forms an image. Like Winnie, I was enthralled by this painting as soon as I saw it. I chose this painting because of the rather bright, subdued tones seen here as opposed to the other paintings in the hall. The painting has a very calming effect on the viewer. From the lazy clouds that roll through the sky to the still waters and stiller coast, it simply seems like a quiet afternoon spent by the beach. The very feeling of that stark silence is evoked through not only the color choice, but the straight, sharp lines seen in the coast, the water horizon and even the clouds. I also loved the fact that this was the only Seurat painting in the room that had a frame made for the painting. The very impact of the other paintings was lessened in my eyes because of the garish frames that surrounded them. The rather subtle changes of color from blue to pink to green almost seemed like an extension of the painting itself. It added to the sense of an ideal; of a picture-perfect afternoon. The other painting I chose was by Monet, an Impressionist. I chose this painting because of how casual the idea behind the painting itself seems. The center of the painting is a cluster of flowers, bending because of a slight breeze that flows through the grass. The brush strokes themselves exhibit that carefree feeling, twisting and turning like the puffs of wind felt on a cool autumn day. The brush strokes of the subject and the background are the same, allowing the flowers to almost blend in. Differing from Seurat’s piece, it’s almost refreshing to see a piece that resembles a snapshot; an unassuming moment in Monet’s walk through the garden is reinterpreted as these beautiful, swirling strokes of color. Because both these paintings are so close to each other in date, there are certain similarities between them, but also fundamental differences in technique, subject choice and style. It will be interesting delving into the pieces’ pasts and try to come to the very core of what they represent and the story they try to tell.
Malavika Attur – Blog B
Like Winnie, I have rarely visited art museums. This may be due to past experiences there. I vaguely recall visiting a few museums in elementary and middle school. For the most part, we couldn’t really explore on our own and we only spent a short time in each gallery before moving to the next one. Before Macaulay, the last time I visited an art museum was in 9th grade, when I went to the MET for one of my classes, Art Appreciation. I remember part of the assignment was to do a detailed sketch of a sculpture specifically from the Greek and Roman exhibition and a painting. To be honest, I am not much of an art person so it was very difficult and time-consuming for me. For me, it felt like I was simply reproducing, or attempting to reproduce, the artwork in black and white. I found myself worrying about how well I was drawing, rather than looking at the artwork. The rest of the class consisted of learning about the art movements, their time periods, specific artists, and their artwork. Overall, the class was pretty factual in nature and didn’t give us time to offer our opinions. Although this class definitely gave me a deeper background in art, I did not really learn to appreciate art as the name of the class suggested.
On the other hand, I did enjoy my time visiting the MoMA this past Friday. For one thing, I believe it was due to insight from reading the writings of Berger and Barnet. Like Winnie and I mentioned in our previous posts, we learned about how we can see art from different perspectives. We had some prior knowledge instead of just being thrown in an art museum. I also believe it was due to the nature of the assignment. Although we were assigned a specific art movement, we were free to look at artwork of other art movements and the rest of the museum. For example, I was intrigued by this one exhibit of a fan hanging from a wire that spanned a few floors. I spent a while looking at the fan blow itself back and forth. I literally saw the exhibit from a different perspective when I passed by it on each floor. Figuratively speaking, I wondered why artist created this. I also had time to sit there and “be there” with the artwork, rather than look at a photograph of it, which Berger made a point about.
My assigned art movement is impressionism, which I knew a little about from studying French, Art Appreciation, and research beforehand. It worked out well because I really love Monet’s art. I have to admit that I had an obsession phase where I made an email, instant messaging, and Facebook name with “water lily” in it. It was really exciting to find out that MoMA had an entire gallery dedicated to Monet’s water lily paintings and just sit surrounded by the artistry. The first piece of art I chose to analyze is Water Lilies, an oil on canvas. I was awed by it because it was three panels, which was very panoramic in nature. Although it was painted from 1914-1926 and impressionism is considered the 1860s to the 1900s, this is a continuation of Monet’s series of water lilies. The painting depicts a pond with green lilies on the left, pink water lilies, and marshy area on the right. Clouds are also shown reflecting off the water. The details are not all too clear but overall, the patches of color blend to create a relaxing outdoor scene.
The second piece of art is also an oil of canvas titled Turning Road at Montgeroult painted by Paul Cezanne in 1898. It depicts a hillside view of Montgeroult, a small French village. In the background, there are tan-colored houses surrounded by green foliage in the foreground. Paul Cezanne started off as an Impressionist but eventually broke off from it forming the Post-Impressionist movement. Although this is one of his later paintings, we can see aspects of both movements. There is the “fluffiness” of the greenery, characteristic of the former, but at the same time, there are distinct lines separating man-made versus mother nature, characteristic of the latter. The warm colors of the buildings also contrast the cool colors of nature. There may be no fine line between one art movement and another, but by comparing these paintings, I hope to explore how Post-Impressionism evolved from Impressionism.
~Erica Kwong
(Blog B)