The works of art that I have chosen to analyze for my first paper are “Agapanthus” by Claude Monet and “Abstract Portrait of Marcel Duchamp” by Katherine Sophie Drier. I chose these two paintings because of the vastly different ways in which the viewer can perceive the beauty of the respective paintings.The paintings are entirely different even when one first views them, one being very obviously a painted depiction of a beautiful flower, and the other being a painting that makes almost no sense without historical context. The painting by Katherine Sophie Drier requires a more active viewing process because it involves a little bit of contextual understanding as to who Marcel Duchamp was and his impact on the art community. This painting is not as easily appreciated as “Agapanthus” is to the general public. “Agapanthus” is a painting that is very pleasing to the eye itself, without much needed strain or thought about the meaning or context of the situation or subject. “Agapanthus” can be more passively enjoyed by people who are not the most avid art viewers. The painting by Drier is to a certain extent subject to interpretation to the viewer, while the depiction “Agapanthus” is not really up for debate.
Glenn Collaku- Blog A
I was actually originally going to use Monet’s “Agapanthus” for my essay as well, but I think it’s really interesting to see the two pieces you chose to use because, as you said, they are so vastly different. One fits our usual description of beautiful artwork and is much easier to understand and view. On the other hand, Drier’s piece is definitely much more abstract and prompts a deeper analysis. It’s not so easy to understand what is being depicted, even knowing the title of the piece. I think these two works would be really interesting to compare since they’re so different in form and subject. You wouldn’t normally think about comparing the two. I hope it goes well for you!
Jessica Sun