Category: Blog A|Blog B (Page 9 of 10)

In Ways of Seeing, John Berger starts off by saying that “the way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe in” (Berger 8), meaning that all art is relative to the person and their past experiences in life. The way one person may see a painting may be completely different from the way another sees it. According to Berger the way people look at art is also affected by “a whole series of learnt assumptions about art” (Berger 11). For example, people may go into a museum expecting to see works of beauty or truth and even though they may not see it in a painting at first, they may force themselves to formulate some type of interpretation that includes these assumptions rather than making their own interpretation. When visiting the MOMA, I found myself approaching most of the paintings with a mindset full of the assumptions Berger described. I felt that they greatly influenced my interpretations too. For example, there were some paintings that I really couldn’t understand and didn’t think were all that great but then I would consider the possibility of abstract beauty being displayed in the paintings or the fact that there must be a deeper meaning behind it. Berger also emphasizes how the authenticity of a painting plays an important role in how people view it. I understood and experienced what Berger meant when he says that “their historical moment is literally before our eyes”( Berger 31). In the MOMA seeing authentic paintings such as “Starry Night” made me feel like I could essentially see and feel what the artists did when they were creating the paintings.

Moreover, Barnet highlights how anything can be art if artists and the public say it is, this is called the Institutional Theory of Art. I found that I could apply this theory when viewing some of the more abstract paintings and sculptures. Sometimes I would ask myself, “How is this is art?” but then I would remember what Barnet said. I couldn’t really see the artistic value in some sculptures but I may just have not been able to see the art piece as other people do. Barnet also introduces the Reception Theory which states that art is not a body of works but is rather an activity of perceivers making sense of images. Thus art is a collaborative effort and I was able to see that when my friends and I worked together to interpret and figure out the meaning behind some paintings we viewed at the MOMA.

Many of the art pieces we looked at in the MoMA were abstract, often defying reality and instead adopting a dream-like, irrational quality that is characteristic of many surrealist paintings. As a result, attempting to interpret the images can be a bit difficult. However, it is possible to interpret art through context, as Berger states that art represented “the totality of possible views taken from points all round the object (or person) being depicted” (18). One of the paintings we observed contained familiar objects such as balloons, shooting stars, and kites despite the unusual context in which these objects were painted–these items were depicted with a gray, dark, and messy background, which makes it challenging to understand how these objects are connected to each other and the background. Therefore, it is important to acknowledge that such objects, which in this case are often seen in childish, innocent contexts, can actually be shown through a variety of different perspectives and concepts.

Barnet emphasizes the importance of asking basic questions such as “What is my first response to the work,” “When, where, and why was the work made,” and “What is the title?” in order to formulate ideas and interpretations (57). Initial reactions towards especially shocking pieces of art can help to clarify an interpretation of an art piece, as it pushes us to go back and find the specific features of the work that elicited such a reaction in the first place. The background information of the work is also helpful. For example, for surrealist paintings, understanding the movement behind the work, as well as the place in which it was created can help us understand the abstractness of the painting. For example, although Salvador Dali’s “The Persistence of Memory” might be confusing to the viewer at first sight, knowing the purpose of the surrealist movement might help one to determine why or how the painting is surrealist.

Often times, many of us are afraid to interpret an art piece in fear of drawing the wrong conclusions, or more specifically, interpreting the art in a manner different from how the artist intended. This fear brings up Barnet’s question: “Does the artist’s intention limit the meaning of a work?” (23) It is important to remember that everyone views things, especially art, differently. According to Berger, what we see is “the relation between things and ourselves” (9). Naturally, how we relate to things, such as images, vary as we have different experiences. Therefore, it is often argued that “the creator of the work cannot comment definitively on it” because “the work belongs…to the perceivers, who of course interpret it variously” (Barnet 24). Our interpretations of art are valid, as it is perceived differently by everyone. This can be applied to surrealist paintings, as their abstract qualities magnify the variety of interpretations because they are meant to stimulate the imagination, which is boundless.

When I have previously visited museums, which mind you has been very rarely, I never knew quite what to look for and generally just cruised through the floors without paying much attention. This Friday, I went with a mind full of purpose. For one, I had to be very vigilant when it came to the paintings because our grade depends on it for our future essay. I also looked at the paintings differently however, in part because I wanted to recruit the new skills that I had read about in our weekly assignment. The first chapter in Ways of Seeing introduces the reader to the conception of relative perception, which I found very interesting because it intuitively made sense. To test this, I asked my friends what they thought of certain paintings and realizing that they looked at things differently than I did.

On the other side of observation, the online reading introduced a very objective way of thinking about art. The online reading promoted thinking about the time period that the art piece was created, as well as trying to find an objective way to determine the definition of art. I wasn’t too successful in understanding how the time period affected the paintings that I observed, but I was able to look at some of the exhibits differently by realizing that they are considered artistic depictions in one form or another at a particular time.

Glenn Collaku

So, a few thoughts that stuck in my head when I was walking about MOMA, and their relations to Berger and Barnet’s concepts… and some more things that I might think about when I go there again.

Continue reading

For you to go to a museum of art, as I went to the Museum of Modern Art, to study the works found there, you must be aware of how to really look at the aforementioned works. If you do not know how to look at art without any knowledge of how to do so, all meaning and understanding of it will be lost upon you. The Barnet reading is a good source of reference to be able to look at art and question it in a way which would lead to understanding the meaning of works before you, as well as understand their significance. Continue reading

The View From Nowhere, an interdisciplinary program directed by Sara Camnasio, delved into the discussion of the Overview Affect and space tourism in a new and thought provoking way. The performance by Julian B. and Jocelyn T. used a variety of different techniques in order to portray the main themes of the Overview Effect.

With the lights dimmed, the audience felt as if blood was pulsing as the thump of a bass gained power. A mix of sharp and fluid motions throughout the choreography created a sense of chaos, like an internal battle was being fought both in the body and in the mind. The electronic music began to mellow out and the dancers’ movements became more and more calm until a feeling of serenity filled the theatre. The dancers stared with wide eyes like they were experiencing the Overview Effect themselves. From this point, the performance took a wild turn. The dancers began using their voices as instruments making a variety of noises. This period of the dance evoked another sense of battle yet different to the first. As the dancers began walking in a circle they mirrored hand signs as if they were relearning how to connect with others. The theme of support began to arise as the dancers began leaning on each other in the space. The use of the voice as an instrument continued. What started out as indistinguishable sounds, slowly turned to words including harmony and unity. From there countries were named in a back and forth pattern as Julian and Jocelyn orbited around each other in a circular motion. They also used the words who, what, why, when and where, helping to evoke more questions from the audience.

After the intermission, PJ Gorre a philosopher of Science from the New School, spoke about what science research reveals about us as humans as well as what it achieves. He brought up topics including space tourism and how it may change our perceptions of humankind. During the question and answer section at the end of the night Sara spoke about her aspirations to bring science back into the public light through multidisciplinary works. Questions about time as a relative measure were proposed and Jocelyn and Julian explained some of the methods of their fluid choreography style. The View From Nowhere was an interesting and thought provoking event that succeeded in connecting the arts and science under one roof. It was interesting to see ideas and themes portrayed in modern dance and then hear the choreographers speak about what motivated them to create this piece.

The first thing that struck me about the performance was the bare humming and throbbing of the music in the beginning.It almost reminded me of ambient electronic bands like Boards of Canada, but it was much more simple and organic than that. The soundtrack did the most work in expressing the emptiness and vastness of space, but the silent motions of the dancers did as well. It was easy for me to imagine the performers as a pair of first time astronauts fumbling about in zero gravity, hearing only the gentle rhythms of the void, seeing only by the dim light of a distant Sun.

Maybe it’s just because I have never seen modern dance before, but the rest of the performance felt like experiencing a mental breakdown. Screaming and yelling, kicking beach balls around (were the four big balls supposed the represent the four gas giants in our solar system?) and making almost animalistic noises were an interesting way of portraying how Earth politics seems so petty and primitive in the comparison to the cosmos. The way in which the performers represented people putting aside their differences seemed to be rocky, with chases and guns, but ultimately successful. While I’m not exactly interested in watching more modern dance, I think that this performance effectively communicated the overview effect in a somewhat non-verbal way.

A steady and rumbling beat shook the theater and my body. The sound immediately imbued me with a sense of discomfort, almost fear. Soon, one dancer emerged, then another. Discord and chaos seemed to govern their bodies. Their movements were unpredictable and independent, just like man. Our minds cultivate countless, erratic thoughts unique from anyone else, our differences in thought causing conflict and confusion, which was captured by the choreography in this first part of the performance. After this, however, the male dancer began spewing distressed noises from his mouth and then kicked beach balls onto the stage, as if he were sick of being human and had purged the flaws of man from his body. The two then started observing and kicking the beach balls as if examining the ills of humanity from a removed perspective. The dancers then started to revolve around each other, reciting the names of the world’s countries, finally in a state of union. It felt like they had transformed from conflicting humans to outside observers. They were now looking at the planet from above, witnessing the countries pass by. However, they also witnessed humans and their actions, using their guns to settle their small and pointless disagreements, now aware of how futile it is. As the performance came to a close, the dancers faded into the darkness, reciting the words “day” and “night,” the only constants on this planet; no matter what fleeting problems we may have, they will never last longer than the unending cycle of day and night. In the end, we are all the same. Just a species sharing a planet, living under the same star.

While watching this performance, a bunch of words came to mind: genius, beautiful, weird, scary, inspirational, different, fascinating. I haven’t been to too many live performances like this before, but this one was definitely something special. It resonated especially with me because it combined two things that are ridiculously interesting to me: physics and dance. I’ve only had very basic introductions to both of these topics (an algebra-based physics class in high school and eight seasons of MTV’s America’s Best Dance Crew), but despite my shallow knowledge, they’ve both managed to captivate me. They’re seemingly opposites; physics is an objective, mathematical science which explains the laws of nature from the subatomic to the astronomical, while dance is an extremely human art form which illustrates the beauty of movement and the human body. Seeing these two concepts come together was moving (no pun intended). Two dancers, two individual human bodies, portraying a concept that is unimaginable for those of us who are bound to Earth: the overview effect.

Everything about this event was striking to me. I was moved by the performance, educated by the lecture, and satisfied by the Insomnia Cookies. Honestly, though, the moment that’s stayed in my mind most was from the Q&A. Someone in the crowd asked (I’m paraphrasing here) if there will come a point, after commercialized spaceflight has become common, when people will no longer experience the overview effect. I was expecting the speakers to say something like “something as grand as seeing the entirety of Earth before your very eyes will always move a human being, even those in the future.” Instead, I was surprised to find that they agreed that there will probably come a point of desensitization, just like after the publication of the first official map of Earth or after the first complete photograph of the Earth was taken. It was just astonishing to me to imagine humanity at that point. A point when everyone has seen and experienced something that is, right now, reserved to only a very select group of people. Thinking of this reminds me that humanity is always moving forward, always asking “what’s next?” I find that both terrifying and wonderful.