Damaris, Hannah, and Darrick have developed a prompt that will introduce you to a new style. Engage with them to learn about the multi-faceted manifestations of Art Nouveau at the turn of the 20th century.
Due to the lack of time we have left in the semester, many art styles that occurred alongside the ones we’ve been learning about have sadly been neglected. One of these styles—Art Nouveau—flourished with Post-Impressionism and was particularly popular and influential at the turn of the 20th century. Art Nouveau (French for “new art“) was a direct reaction against academic art, and represented a radical departure from tradition. Art Nouveau favored references to nature, with whipping vines and curvilinear lines. Predominant colors included muted olive tones, pastel pinks, and periwinkles; images of nature and animals were frequently depicted (Art Nouveau--Overview). Art Nouveau artists were skeptical of industrialization and valued the fine craftsmanship required for handmade decorative arts, furnishings, and interior design. The Paris World’s Fair of 1900—the Exposition Universelle—popularized Art Nouveau for the masses, as it was admired for its elegance and associated with “modernity” (check out the extravagance here). Considering how well-attended and huge this World’s Fair was (marking the turn of the century) it is somewhat surprising that Art Nouveau essentially died out merely 15 years later; yet, the onset of WWI put an end to many art styles (The Art Story). Nevertheless, the influence Art Nouveau had on art and the beginnings of modernism were substantial. (We encourage you to take a look at the links included to familiarize yourself with Art Nouveau before addressing this week’s prompts.)
Due to the lack of time we have left in the semester, many art styles that occurred alongside the ones we’ve been learning about have sadly been neglected. One of these styles—Art Nouveau—flourished with Post-Impressionism and was particularly popular and influential at the turn of the 20th century. Art Nouveau (French for “new art“) was a direct reaction against academic art, and represented a radical departure from tradition. Art Nouveau favored references to nature, with whipping vines and curvilinear lines. Predominant colors included muted olive tones, pastel pinks, and periwinkles; images of nature and animals were frequently depicted (Art Nouveau--Overview). Art Nouveau artists were skeptical of industrialization and valued the fine craftsmanship required for handmade decorative arts, furnishings, and interior design. The Paris World’s Fair of 1900—the Exposition Universelle—popularized Art Nouveau for the masses, as it was admired for its elegance and associated with “modernity” (check out the extravagance here). Considering how well-attended and huge this World’s Fair was (marking the turn of the century) it is somewhat surprising that Art Nouveau essentially died out merely 15 years later; yet, the onset of WWI put an end to many art styles (The Art Story). Nevertheless, the influence Art Nouveau had on art and the beginnings of modernism were substantial. (We encourage you to take a look at the links included to familiarize yourself with Art Nouveau before addressing this week’s prompts.)
- Watch some of this video for a visual montage of a variety of decorative arts representative of the Art Nouveau style. Although our Learning Community has primarily focused on the “major” arts (painting, sculpture, and architecture) the “decorative” arts are an important (and interesting!) aspect of artistic creation. Do some research about the decorative arts in a period we have studied — or fast forward to one later in the 20th century — and find examples of decorative arts that are representative of their time. Share them with us. How does our awareness of them impact our understanding of the time they were created? Why do you think there is a “hierarchy” of art (in which major art is superior and minor/decorative/utilitarian works are more often considered “craft” than Art?
- Art Nouveau is closely associated with the rise in graphic arts, especially posters (see History of Posters). This article addresses the impact Art Nouveau had on graphic design and advertising. The Art Nouveau style was emulated in advertisements, which further popularized the style. The line between advertisements (commercial art) and Fine Art was blurred. Think about contemporary visual culture, where most ads are created through the use of photography and computer generated images. Does this suggest that commercial art and fine art no longer intersect? In what ways can modern advertising be considered “art”? Please share examples of the advertisements you find to make your case.
- In many ways, the Art Nouveau style was revolutionary and reactionary: Artists reacted against the structured and polished nature of academic art and developed a new stylistic vocabulary. The aim of many modernist styles seems to be to evoke a reaction in the audience —often a negative one. As we discussed in class, many artists, aware of the fact that many of their esteemed predecessors were criticized and ridiculed during their lifetimes, equated rejection with proof of greatness.This dynamic has been termed the “shock of the new” and informs many of the styles that emerged following the Art Nouveau period. Is this judgement valid? Do you, as an artist or creator, believe that the extent to which your work is currently criticized is an indication of its merit? Should you aim to please with your work, or should you simply aim for a reaction?
Damaris, Hannah, and Darrick, thank you all for this week's blog prompt. I will be addressing your third prompt that begs the question of "why is there a hierarchy in art?".
ReplyDeleteTo begin, in order to familiarize myself with styles of decorative art that were popular during the 20th century I did research on a man named Friedrich Goldscheider. Goldscheider was an extremely influential artist who specialized in ceramics and created the renowned Goldscheider Manufactory and Majolica Factory. The factory was once one of the leading producers of terracotta, faience, bronze, and alabaster ceramics objects. Likewise, Goldscheider was not from a country that we typically focus on in class. In fact, he is from the Czech Republic. The web-page that I read from Artnet stated that "Goldscheider's most recognized works are small, posed, ceramic figures" which were largely "influenced by turn-of-the-century artistic movements like Art Deco, Art Nouveau, and Orientalism". The same web-page also states that Goldscheider's works commonly featuring "flowing lines and naturalistic decorative motifs". Goldscheider was so influential that he even won the Bronze Medal for terra cotta pieces in 1889 at the International Exhibition in Paris ("Friedrich Goldscheider").
With this being said, I believe that it is important to be aware of "lesser known artists". Although they might not be as popular as other artists, this does not mean that their art is not influential. Take for example Goldscheider, his company became one of the most influential ceramics manufactures in Austria during his time. He also mentored several famous artists such as Josef Lorenzl, Stefan Dakon, Ida Meisinger and even two of the perhaps best known Austrian ceramic artists, Michael Powolny and Vally Wieselthier. Both of these things were, and still by today's standards are huge accomplishments. However, Goldscheider is sadly one of the many artists who does not get international fame. Scholars have wondered for decades why his incredible art is not valued the same way that other works of art by his contemporaries like Christopher Dresser are. They have deduced that it is likely because of where Goldscheider was from. Many of Goldscheider's contemporaries who were much more famous than him were from Great Britain, France and America. However, the art of ceramics as a whole was nowhere near as popular as more "major" art-forms like painting and prints.
http://www.artnet.com/artists/friedrich-goldscheider/
https://www.liveauctioneers.com/price-guide/friedrich-goldscheider/8194/
Josh, first of all, thank you for doing such interesting research for our blog prompt this week! Friedrich Goldscheider fascinates me; I went ahead and looked at some of his works and the talent he had was extraordinary. I, like you, wonder why he doesn't have as much fame as many others do but then I got to thinking of political history surround the Czech Republic. Although Goldscheider created his work toward the end of the 19th century, the Czech Republic was under communist rule beginning in 1948. That time difference is big, to be sure, but with half the world on their toes due to the Red Scare, you have to wonder what kind of art, psychological thinking, and other information we have lost due to the Red Scare. Many people didn't want anything to do with things created by communists. Do you think, if we put politics aside, artists like Goldscheider would have more fame if their countries weren't under communist rule at any period of time? Surely Goldscheider didn't achieve much fame in his lifetime, but perhaps the Red Scare halted his rise to fame even more.
DeleteHannah, you definitely bring up an important point that I did not originally think of. In doing my research I saw many times that where he was from hindered him; however, I thought that this was because the Czech Republic was perhaps not as well known for ceramics as other countries. I compared it to France during the 17th century. During the 17th century there definitely were works of art coming from everywhere in the world, yet, France became the epicenter of artistic popularity. I briefly addressed in my prompt that I believed if Goldscheider would have been American or British he likely would have had more fame. But what you said was entirely correct, a huge part of why art from not only the Czech Republic, but also Russia, was not universally popular during the 19th century were because of the Red Scare.
DeleteI was about to mention how I've never heard of Friedrich Goldscheider, until I read the previous comments and really thought about the Red Scare and how it could effect artists. Just think that at one moment you could be known for creating beautiful art but then losing your audience because of something you have no control over. The artists themselves might've not even been communist but with the Red Scare and everything that it tore apart, some artists must've lost a lot of hard work.
DeleteJosh, first, I want to say thank you for participating in this week's blog. Now, moving into what you wrote about, I believe you brought out a good point about it being unfair that not many artists have been acknowledged for what they contributed to the time period they were in. As you mentioned, Goldscheider influenced artists like Michael Powolny and Vally Wieselthier and should have some credit for it. However, what Hannah mentioned about politics does sound like a reason why he didn’t become so well known. It's unfortunate politics got in the way of this great artist's fame.
DeleteIn the article by Ann called "The Influence of Art Nouveau on French Advertising Art" it seems that commercial art and fine are no longer intersect. Fine art highlight and depicts subjects in any situation, story or lifetime while commercial art is mainly used to highlight a certain product instead of the subjects. Art Nouveau's subjects are inspired by shapes of plant life, curvy lines, femininity and glamor. The fine art side of the Nouveau movement would house many of these features, the overall beauty of creativity. Not only that but fine art pieces can be repeated but each recreation can have a diffrent meaning than the last one. Commercial art was seen as an art piece that was produced repeatedly with one intention, to sell something. At that time the fine and commercial arts didn't overlap because of their initial intentions. The commercial side was merely inspired by fine arts and just modified those ideas. Modern advertising can be seen as art because usually when companies are trying to get people to buy something they make sure that the models look happy, beautiful and benefiting from their product. Art can be used for almost anything and still be art at the same time.
ReplyDeleteYasmine, allow me to play the "devil's advocate" and discuss modern media with you. You mentioned in your post that you believe the overall intention of media has changed. More specifically, you stated that advertising used to be about selling something and now it is more about convincing the audience to buy something. I would agree that these two intentions can be very different. To me, "convincing someone to buy something" likely means that an "artist" would be putting more effort into, say a commercial for example, in the hopes to engage consumers so that they will want to buy their products.
DeleteHowever, I would argue that there does not always need to be an "intention" behind something to be art. In class we talked about several Improvisation artists, such as Wassily Kandinsky, who painted works of art that were not based on anything and that did not represent anything. Would you argue that painters like him created art simply to "sell something", or can something that doesn't necessarily have "intention" be art?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJosh, I would like to slightly disagree in the most respectable way, that there should always be intention within a piece. For improv, I still do see intention, so let me explain my self. As a dancer, we are given opportunities to improve many times, mostly at conventions, auditions, and competitions, and the overall main goal is to be noticed. Through your spontaneous choices, you must accompany a movement with another that works in harmony, whether its a rigorous or smooth, the movement it's self becomes the focus. Even if you consider improv as self expression with no path, there is always an intention behind the artist. Whether it's a sophisticated story all the way to a simple concept or idea, like color or line, that is what makes a piece compelling. I guess where I'm going is, if the intention of a piece is to have no intention, that is still an intention, no? This is just my opinion, so I perhaps may not understand the idea of improv fully, but yes! Thank you for talking about intention, it definitely has me thinking now!
DeleteYasmine, first of all, I see what you are saying about how commercial art has (merely) been inspired by the fine arts. I touched upon several examples of fine art making its way into commercials in my original post. However, I personally think that there is not as much of a fine line between the two types of art. You stated how fine art highlights and depicts subjects, while commercial art highlights and depicts products. I understand that, but at the same time feel as though it is only a minor distinction, and commercial art would not exist if not for fine art's influences. If commercial art did not pick a central figure (in this case, a product) to emphasize like fine art (typically, though not always, as Josh alluded to) has central subjects, modern advertisements would not be as effective in fulfilling their purpose (to get customers to buy things). So, this is where I respectfully disagree with your ideas a little bit. I concede, however, that Art Nouveau was much more naturalistic, and fine art, unlike commercial, can have multiple meanings when it is recreated. One last thing: in my original post, I had not considered the influence of models in advertising, so thank you for bringing along that perspective!
DeleteThis conversation is quite interesting because I feel like it has now turned into two of the discussion questions. Josh, you have now started to touch onto the hierarchy of how commercial art should be viewed, and how it doesn't have to have an intention. With this conclusion it can be eluded that you may be saying no intention=not art. Jacey I love that you have found a paradox in your statement about improv, as art is hard to define after we branch off from the traditional sense. Are video games art? Is a commercial art? Where do we stop?
DeleteBack to the origin of this post, Yasmine I'd like to add that commercial art seems to be the modern version of iconography. I know in the past my classes have covered multiple times how advertisements use representation to subtly hint at their main point. (https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&p=big+brother+apple+add#id=51&vid=e1f692841a8ca5d8b1229ec633a2b36f&action=click) This apple add from 1984 uses George Orwell's book as a comparison about how their product won't reflect what his book is predicting (the irony from watching it in today's society is hilarious). All that being said, commercial art has taken a lot more from fine art then meets the eye.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that commercial art and fine art are still very close in similarities. My father is actually a freelance graphic designer, and I my self am a photographer, as well as an artist in other media's. Based off of all the creativity I see labored into my father's work, as well as my photography, compared to traditional mediums, they are pretty much the same. In both you are usually commissioned by a client to create a work that has particular requirement to reach their standards. My father tells me that this is where he is able to express his creativity, and it clearly shows. Creating logos for advertising and such, takes deliberate trial and error, and also, a totally different perspective on things, that will ultimately make you stand out from other graphic designers, just as it does for a traditional artist. He always likes point out, any time we pass a fast food restaurant, their logos, and their colors. Like the classic golden arches, I think its evident why the colors are the way they are. Attention to warmer colors, specifically yellows and reds, appeal to the brain and translates feelings of hunger, where a color like blue or purple may not do the trick. Also simplicity as well as intention are key, you never want a logo so complicated that people will struggle remembering how the design actually went, or what it stands for. As a work of art, you always still want their to be meaning and purpose that can be translated, and the same goes for commercial art. McDonald's clean use of color, choice of font, and format/design is simple yet very effective and memorable. Though it may seem like it was a simple design, creativity, as well as logic, was essential for this to be such an iconic logo.
ReplyDeleteJacey, thank you for this inside look at the creation behind advertisements. I agree that there are quite a lot of similarities between commercial art and fine art. Though it isn't quite the same I know someone who designs and prints t-shirts for a living, and he too finds joy in being able to express his creativity through that. His creativity may be limited through the commissioner's preferences, but he still gets some wiggle room for color, design and placement. There is intention behind the logos and designs, and sometimes it takes a Buzzfeed article for us to see it. (https://www.buzzfeed.com/maximilianzender/logo-secrets)
DeleteGreat blog post Jacey! I like your reference to modern advertising and use of salient colors. These kinds of attention to detail are what make artists better than the rest. It makes it easier to be creative and productive when you are able to make use of talents in order to make deliberate design choices. I also agree that works of art can be simplistic but still use creativity, logic, and simplicity to make iconic works.
DeleteI completely agree with you Jacey. It sucks to hear people discount digital art, because it's "easier" than traditional mediums. Just as much love and thought goes into every piece created by a graphic designer, as much as a painter. There is so much thought that goes into creating every logo, which is why I truly enjoy graphic design. Great post, Jacey!
DeleteJacey I would first like to say that I think it's so cool that your dad is into graphic design. I hope that his work inspires you to view the world for its colors and textures just like my fathers work inspires me.
DeleteAs I was reading your post the first place that came to my mind was McDonald's so I decided to go eat. Hahaha.. you know what they say.. we eat with our eyes. Anyways, I also think that colors play a significant role when it comes to advertisements and logos. We all know that some of these fast food restaurants can get us our food in a matter of seconds but I'm sure that their graphic designers weren't as quick to choose the golden arches to represent their business. Designers definitely have to think this through but what works better than the great trio of red, yellow and blue?
First of all, before seeing the History of Posters article, I did not know that advertising stemmed all the way back to the 1800s. That is very intriguing. Additionally, in the article about Art Nouveau’s impact on graphic design and advertising, there was a quote which stated, “Though they made extravagant use of tendril-like shapes, Art Nouveau artists intended them to be an integral part of the image rather than superfluous decoration. Thus there was a certain economy to Art Nouveau that set it apart from the art which recently preceded it.” I feel this is still relevant to advertising today, as the most effective advertisements grab our attention by including a central ‘focal point’. Now, in regards to contemporary visual culture, I believe that while photography and computer-generated images are entirely different media than what has historically been used to create advertisements (for instance, lithographs), commercial art and fine art do still intersect. After all, how effective would advertising be if not for creating and depicting symbols that ‘stick’ into our minds? It would not be very much so. Thus, even though these more modern iterations of technology have propagated current advertisements, they are still rooted in the fine arts. With that said, modern advertising can be considered art through its ability to evoke emotion, be visually appealing, and have a signature ‘logo’ that is easily recognizable. An example of emotion in advertising that I discovered was an image from the World Wildlife Fund of a regular person’s body with a fish’s head with the caption “Stop climate change before it changes you.” (Link: https://creativegreenius.com/2009/09/20/stop-climate-change-before-it-changes-you/). This image evokes a strong emotional response in the viewer because it poses an unlikely yet terrifying scenario. If this advertisement had just been the caption, without the ‘fish head man’, it likely would not be half as effective or convincing. In addition, an example of visual appeal in advertising that came readily to mind was fast food advertisements, where restaurants show their burger depicted very artistically with perfect proportions in order to make viewers want to eat it. However, the majority of people who have actually purchased the burger knows that that depiction is typically far from the reality. Furthermore, an example of an easily recognizable advertisement that I am sure at least most of us are familiar with is the Nike “Just Do It” ‘check-mark’ symbol. Everytime we see this symbol, we are able to recognize that it is Nike -- this is much akin to how when we see an artwork, we are able to identify that it uses the style of a specific artist.
ReplyDeleteModern advertising, in some cases, even makes explicit reference to visual art in order to appeal even more to audiences. For instance, this Klondike Bar commercial (that looks to be from around the ‘80s) pays direct homage to the Mona Lisa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYK7l1Ywr3s. As shown, she breaks out into a big, almost ‘creepy’ smile after the Klondike is shown getting covered in chocolate. The advertisers’ logic is that if the Klondike Bar made the Mona Lisa smile, it will make us smile as well. Additionally, this magazine advertisement from Honda took inspiration from Rodin’s sculpture The Thinker by inserting an image resembling it with the caption, “Thoughtful, through and through” to enhance the appeal of the Accord Sedan: https://artsology.com/art_inspires.php. Moreover, a Campbell’s (tomato) soup commercial from 2002 references Andy Warhol’s artistic depiction of the logo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OI5ucwtOMg. Therefore, I believe that there is still a link between the commercial and fine arts, and that modern advertising is an art form through the tactics it uses to engage its viewers.
Thank you Lizzy for your participation. I, like you, also didn't know advertisements are actually older than many would think. I used to think advertisement could not possibly be art, but you did well in further proving it can be.
DeleteYes! I think you are very right to point out that commercial art tries to appeal to the audience's emotions. Like traditional art, commercial art is stills doing the basics, using elements of composition and design to engage with the audience in a particular way. The goal of both forms of at is to perhaps, make the audience having certain feelings, think about specific topics, etc.
ReplyDeleteJacey, I totally agree that commercial art relies on composition and design to engage with its audience! To your last point, I believe that there is an informative component and a persuasive component to emotion in the arts. In commercial art, emotion is much more persuasive because it is trying to get the viewer to buy the product, or donate to the organization, etc. But in fine art, emotion is more informative because it allows us to delve into what the artist was potentially thinking when he/she made the work, and what conditions were like during the time the work was made. So, the overarching purpose of emotion in each type of art differs, but the general goals of including it are the same: to get a reaction out of viewers and stimulate their thinking.
DeleteJust as many other occupations, art is something that has different levels of participants. There are those that follow the traditional and academic style, those who branched off slightly from the path, and those who took a whole new path from the beginning. Personally, I think that every artist should follow whatever medium and style they enjoy, and what they feel are good at. If you are constantly trying to please or get a reaction, there is no passion for your work. I think one of the great things about art (and any type of visual or performing art in general), is that it is woven with self-expression. Sometimes it can only be understood by the creator, but no matter what, it is a talent and a true reflection of oneself.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do believe that taking risks is necessary not only for growth, but also exposure. It doesn’t do anyone good if a creator sticks to their comfy bubble and doesn’t at least try to branch out. Why, if Michelangelo really put his foot down and refused to paint, then we wouldn’t have the Sistine Chapel ceiling the way it is today. There is a sort of necessity for changes and risks in art, or it would be quite boring. I think that the judgment of “any attention is good attention, even if it’s negative” is quite spot on. As we have been approaching present day art, more and more we are studying artists that weren’t appreciated in their own time. They were the innovators, the difference makers, the ones who changed the view of art and flipped it on its head. I feel as if the natural change of art, such as from Van Gogh and Monet, are incredibly valid and true to the artist. Art that moves you in such a way that causes the viewer to feel fear, or uncomfortable, or any emotion is good art, despite present or lacking technique. However, I’m afraid of how fake it can be if the artists are now trying to be different. Having the courage to do something unique that you’ve been wanting to do is one thing, but to force it makes the product no longer genuine. I have concluded through my own journey of art that each person has a separate style and technique, they just need to unlock it. I would identify myself as an expressionist artist, so my take on this subject may be biased, but I believe that the connection between art and artist should always come before the connection between art and public. A reaction shouldn’t be the artists’ first priority.
My view may come off quite modernistic, because we have the unique opportunity that not many artists have had; the internet. Before social media and deviantart and the internet, it took a lot more to be noticed as an artist as it was a constant journey just to get discovered. Because of this factor that we are not used to, a reaction may be the key element to art. Today, any artist can start up an art account and get views and coverage, all they need is internet access. It wasn’t that simple not too long ago, and because of easy exposure it isn’t as hard to make an impression; an artist can be their genuine selves with their chosen style.
I like what you said about Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel. As I stated in my blog post, many artists push themselves out there because without doing so, they would drown in the saturation of artists. There are just so many now because of things like the internet. I also like how you mentioned that everyone has their own interpretation of art and I agree completely. Great post Bryson!
DeleteBryson, I agree with what you said regarding if an artist is constantly trying to please people, there will be no passion in their work. I know for me, when I am creating something, I want to enjoy doing it. I don’t want to create some form of art that I don’t enjoy. I want to create something I’m passionate about. However, like you said, sometimes it is necessary for an artist to branch out and try new things because they may just discover something else they enjoy. If they find out they hate some other form of art, at least they know. An artist should be true to what they have a passion for but shouldn’t be opposed to new ideas.
DeleteYes !!! Bryson, thank you for this great post! Artists SHOULD be able to follow whatever medium and style they enjoy! What you said about this reminded me a lot of Stravinsky's music, especially when you said that taking risks is important for growth and exposure. Stravinsky's compositions turned back on traditional classical music but he was the vessel that took a risk and showed the world this new idea and style of music.
DeleteBryson, I love your post, thank you.
DeleteWhat resonates with me is your mention of Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel. It's true, sometimes artists need to do things they do not want to do in order to get their foot in the door. That could be the shock of the new, or following the footsteps of prior artists. We see this with modernist painters, for example. Just take a look at the early works of van Gogh or Picasso; some of their paintings were quite academic compared to the works they are most known for. Artists use this fame they get from following trends or shocking their audience for a sense of fame, but in some cases the fame doesn't come until afterward, and that fame goes toward the paintings that are shocking.
Bryson, I totally agree with all that you have said here. Taking risks is huge, not only in art but also in writing and, as we saw through Stravinsky, music. Not only does it make the artist's craft less 'boring', but it also helps the artist develop further skills and, to reference what Ashlynne said, (maybe) shed light on unknown skills or passions. With this said, looking back, I honestly applaud Michelangelo for not backing down and going on to produce the Sistine Chapel frescoes. Furthermore, I agree that artists should not be pressured or forced to create something they do not want to just for the sake of obtaining a reaction, nor should they place getting a reaction as their first priority. If your only goal as an artist is to incite reaction in your viewers, you may want to reconsider your career choices. Lastly, the final point of your post is very similar to something I touched upon a few blogs ago (namely, the one on Art Criticism). It is amazing to me how much the 'times have changed' in regards to technology.
DeleteI have chosen to address the first prompt regarding decorative arts. After watching portions of the video of art nouveau decorative art, I decided to research decorative art from the Rococo period. Decorative art from this period was similar in characteristics to the other types of art from this period, such as paintings or sculptures. I found a picture of a small chest of drawers. The description below it notes that the Rococo was known for its use of “sinuous, a-symmetrical curves” ("Rococo Decorative"). The edges of the chest are bordered with gilded curves, swirling around like a vine. Gilding or using gold leaf or gold in paint was common to make simple things look like pieces of sculpture ("Rococo"). In the article from The Art Story, there was also a picture of a clock inside of what looks like a gilded relief sculpture. The Rococo was similar to the Baroque in that they produced very elaborate and complex artworks. This was a period that also had a certain light heartedness and frivolous feeling to it as well. The two characters in the center of the chest and the small character on the side give it that light heartedness with the way they are posed, almost looking like they’re dancing.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the chest and the clock, knowing that they are from the Rococo period helps one to understand why they were created the way they were. Why are the chest and the clock, both so elaborately adorned? A chest of drawers or clock today would not look like the ones from the Rococo but would be much simpler. I think that during that time, these objects: the chest and the clock, were not merely utilized for their function. Artists did not design the chest to be able to fit as many articles of clothing as possible in a small design, or the clock to tell time as efficiently as possible. These objects were works of art in themselves. They were beautifully made to be admired.
I think that there is a hierarchy of art because some mediums were emphasized over others. There are many paintings and sculptures that are world renown, but not very many decorative art pieces that are popular. In class, we learned about academies that taught mediums such as painting and sculpting. However, we did not hear of academies that taught ceramics or furniture making. It is also possible that art forms thought of more as “crafts” such as furniture making, and design and ceramics could have been viewed as for people without talent. However, it is visible that it took great talent to create these types of art and not just anyone could do it.
Chest of Drawers: https://www.nga.gov/features/slideshows/rococo-decorative-arts-of-the-mid-1700s.html#slide_1
Clock: https://www.theartstory.org/movement-rococo-history-and-concepts.htm
(under "School of Fontainebleau 1528-1630")
Thank you for the links you've provided Ashlynne. Those pieces are extravagant, even if I didn't know they were from the Rococo period I could tell by a simple glance. They are so ornamental and elaborate. It is a shame decorative furniture isn't seen as a major art piece; many beautiful works of art do not get the recognition they deserve due to this. Perhaps another reason furniture isn't seen as "art" is because there is a separate use to it than just being something to look at. With a drawer, you can admire its looks and still keep things in it. And with frequent use, it is bound to be damaged in a way. This brings up another discussion on whether or not art can be made for more than just looking at. Can art have more than one use?
DeleteAshlynne, thank you for participating in this week's blog. You brought up something we didn't discuss in class: furniture was created to serve two jobs: to look pretty, and to serve a purpose other than just for looks. Furniture incorporated utility and an aesthetic for whoever wanted it. I wish we could talk about this form of art style a bit more because it really is important to understanding a time period, at least that's what I personally feel.
DeleteAshlynne, you chose beautiful pieces to analyze. It really is a wonder why there is a hierarchy of art. It takes incredible talent to handcraft practically anything, and even more talented to make it as intricate and delicately designed as many decorative arts are.
DeleteI really appreciate the blog prompt directed towards students who are artists. I decided to speak on the last prompt because as an artist, I feel I have something to say about it and that it seems like a thought provoking question.
ReplyDeleteI think the judgement that "rejection = proof of greatness" was the wrong approach to art but perhaps a necessary one. Those academies like the Royal Academy in France had a vice grip on what style mattered and which style was popular. I can see why artists would try to shock their audiences because that was the only way they felt to get their attention if their art was not academic. As an artist, especially in a day and age where art is so saturated on the internet, it's hard to get noticed without doing something shocking. Even on that point, there is less and less that will shock people because we are a primarily visual culture.
While it is becoming necessary for some people to "shock the masses," I don't think shock and new equates to merit. Good art is good art and it is hard for that kind of opinion to be objective. I think art should aim to please or follow your own predetermined notions of art instead of getting a reaction. That is, unless that was your intention in the first place.
In the terms of myself, I would consider myself a learning artist and most of my work is intended to please myself and other people. Rarely have I ever made something with the intent to shock someone.
Ethan, I agree that rejection equating success is not the best approach to art. As you stated, being noticed in todays social media age is quite difficult. I feel like it is getting harder and harder to shock people, because we have all been so desensitized to so much that it just becomes the norm.
DeleteThank you for your reply Ethan!
DeleteYour comment about the necessity of shocking the masses reminds me of the "shocking" photo shoots and fashion shows out there, which in itself is an art form. Just think about Kim Kardashian's "Break the Internet" photo shoot with Paper Magazine. Did it shock the internet because it was good art? Probably not. But it got people talking, and in a way did break the internet for the weeks following its publication. Some art is created with the intention of "breaking the internet" and not because it is a passion. Thanks again for your comment!
Ethan, thank you for responding to this blog. As a learning artist, I too think my art is made for me and not really about what other people would like to see. Art, like you said, isn't all about trying to shock people. Sometimes, it's about pleasing one's self.
DeleteEthan, I am now curious to see what kind of art you would make if the sole purpose of making it was to make people react to it. I don't mean to totally disagree with you but in my experience when I go to art museums the art piece that I am observing should make me react or shock me in order for me to be intrigued. What will I get out of someone's artwork if I can't relate to it?
DeleteImagine if one of your works was in the Salon des Refusés, would you be content knowing that your artwork was at least acknowledged or would you strive to go out of your way and shock the mass?
Damaris, Hannah, and Darrick, great prompt! I will be addressing the second prompt, I am a big fan of Art Nouveau! I don't believe there is a big difference between commercial art and fine art. Commercial art is just more accessible to general public. There are various ways in which modern advertisement is art. As a graphic designer, we are constantly trying to break the mold and create something different and never seen before, similar to traditional art. My favorite type of advertisement to look at are band posters and album covers. I always look at The Growlers posters for inspiration.
ReplyDeletehttps://store.thegrowlers.com/collections/posters/products/philadelphia-show-poster-fall-2018
Aryanna, I like how you brought in band posters and album covers as forms of art. When I think posters, I usually think advertisements. However, like the poster you linked, posters and album covers for bands and solo artists can be art as well. I often forget that there is art outside of what is in a museum. It can be found all around me from advertisements to album covers. It is also interesting to see how posters as art have evolved since the art nouveau period up to now. There is much more freedom for creativity like the original prompt mentioned with modern inventions such as cameras and computers.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSome modern advertising is way too obviously not fine art. For example, http://maxzoglio1.blogspot.com/2014/12/deceptive-fast-food-advertisements.html
ReplyDeleteThere is not really a deep message or anything to qualify it as fine art. I'm not saying who ever worked on this did not work hard but it is just a basic food advertisement. At the same time, there are very cool and interesting advertisements that do use a creative eye.
https://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2016/12/20/creative-advertising-ideas
Or
https://www.adsoftheworld.com/media/print/lg_wedding
Is it fine art? I am not sure, but it is some type of art.
Thank you, Damaris, Hannah and Darrick for providing this great prompt! I never really thought about decorative art in comparison to the more typical type art you'd find in a museum. Without really thinking about it, I guess I always figured they were completely separate, that decorative art wasn't up to par with other forms of art. After watching a video showcasing 19th century decorative art (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ7kFo--0DI), I'm surprised. The pieces shown are incredibly detailed, carefully assembled, and include multiple ornamental materials. I probably thought the way I did because I think of today's decorative pieces as made in a factory or assembly line. I love unique things, and many decorative pieces you'd find currently are mass produced, taking away that uniqueness. But these pieces from the 19th century, and thousands of others, are very unique and hand crafted. I'm not sure why there's a hierarchy with art, and that many people consider these decorative art pieces to be crafts. My best guess would be because many of them have a purpose or utility, like storage or telling time, possibly taking away some sort of pure enjoyability that people feel art has.
ReplyDeleteHi Erica! I completely understand what you are saying at the beginning, I would have never thought to compare typical art that we have been learning about to decorative art. Thank you for proving a link, it was very helpful. I, too, understand and love the uniqueness of typical art, it just adds to the overall beauty of a piece. I think you are also right in regards to the hierarchy in art, people often consider decorative art as something that is not uniquely displayed as a single copy, serving a different purpose from art sometimes entirely. This would probably explain why it is considered to be lower in the hierarchy. I greatly enjoyed your post, thank you again Erica!
DeleteNice prompt! I love the face that you guys brought up a whole new type of art because I do feel that we neglected some types of art due to time constrictions and talking about them in our Blog posts will help with that. First off, I do think that any creator should go with what they're please with. Sure, they might want a reaction from the crowd but they should ultimately choose their own way instead of what the crowd wants. However, using some academy taught skills can be helpful in developing other more unique types of art work. You should always go towards your own heart and draw what you want but there is also some situations where you might need to draw something for something based on Patronage. I think, if you're painting to have fun or as a hobby you should really just paint with your hearts content so that your passion for it doesn't die. If you're a painter for your career then you should definitely love your work but you might have some restrictions.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, thank you to Damaris, Hannah, and Darrick for this weeks great blog prompt. I am excited to learn and analyze another new art movement that plays a role in art culture and history. I will be addressing the third prompt that is listed in the post.
ReplyDeleteI think the judgment that follows art that is different, is valid as long as it is not hatefully negative. I think multiple sets of eyes can bring a variety of different stylistic opinions and suggestions; that can be taken into account, or not depending on the artist. In other words, I always think constructive criticism is healthy, because it offers a perspective outside of the artist. Also, I personally believe when art is criticized negatively or positively, it does not indicate its merit. This may be the opposite of popular opinion, because something that is usually judged and criticized positively warrants a positive and attention-seeking status among other artwork. But, in my point of view, even critiquing a piece negatively does not necessarily label whether it is a masterpiece or not. I think there are multiple contributing factors that play a role in deciding whether a piece of art is good or bad, not just the results of criticism. As for the last part of the prompt, I think artist should aim to please with their work instead of trying to focus towards a reaction. If someone is just focusing on the wow-factors of art, then I believe they are missing the true point of art. It is not just about who can create the most astonishing work, it is about the combination of individual artistic creation and style. Each piece of art is unique with different styles, inspirations, and themes creating the artistic culture that we live in currently. Artist and art that is created just to aim for a reaction is used to mainly gain popularity in opinion, true art should aim to be stunning and please whoever lays eyes upon it. This being said, I still did enjoy the learning about the different style of Art Nouveau and all the impacts that it had in art culture overall. Thank you again for a great blog topic, I appreciate and am interested in the many different artistic styles, even if they were not popular or greatly admired.
Thank you Damaris, Hannah, and Darrick for this week's prompt. I would like to provide some of the insights I had while I analyzed some art noveau based on the last topic's question; should you aim to please with your work, or simply aim for reaction?
ReplyDeleteI would first like to add that art nouveau was a time where art could twist, flow and decorate ones consciousnesses and life. Now, I am a big lover of architecture and one of the designs that caught my attention was Park Guell. This public park, located on Carmel Hill in Barcelona, caught my attention because it reflected this idea of swivering lines and decorating life with its beauty. I think that this innovative design shows many different capabilities of its architects, Antoni Gaudi and Josep Maria Jojol, while it also shows the significance of specialized craftmanship. I am including this art work because I think that the architects did not only design this hillside for their own contentment but also because they wanted to be a part of an innovative era that made design and craftsmanship part of the conversation. Even if people criticized the design it was not an indication of its merit, people could adore it or people could despise it but it made people react and even consider new ideas about architecture.