The Triumph of Mordecai

Andy Warhol and Pop Art

Although, I do not consider myself an artsy person, there are a few artists whose work I really enjoy. One of my favorite artists is Andy Warhol. He was a painter who is famous for his pop art. Recently I read an article from the Art Journal written by Paul Bergin. In the article, which was written in 1967, Bergin examined Warhol’s art at the pinnacle of his career. He examined many of Warhol’s painting, which he had completed at the time. Bergin argues Warhol offers his image, his mask, for public consumption, but deprives the public of anything more (Bergin 359-363). When Warhol was asked about his background he once replied, "Why don't you make it up?" The remark is characteristic. It shows Warhol's unwillingness to expose himself beyond his public mask (Bergin 359-363).

Bergin supports his claim, that with regard to the public Warhol does not want to exist outside of his image, with support from his paintings. Warhol’s emphasis upon a stylized exterior and the lack of concern for anything other than the obvious is a major theme in Warhol's art, as well as in his deportment (Bergin 359-363). He also says how all of Warhol's art takes shape and exists close to the unconscious. Meaning, it is not conceived in a conscious mind; neither is it intellectually precise (Bergin 359-363).

Also, Bergin suggests that how Warhol paints attributes to the mysteriousness meaning of his paintings. Warhol paints on silkscreen and there are a number of advantages to the use of a silkscreen (Bergin 359-363). According to Bergin it’s easier to silk-screen images than to paint them freehand. The author talks about the Warhol’s art as art of the “machine”. He says that Warhol’s art is of the machine not about it. He says the machine is, to the artist, a way of life, representative of a unique field of twentieth-century experience, and all of Warhol's art is a striving to express the machine in the machine's own terms (Bergin 359-363). In some of his painting Warhol deliberately calls upon his viewer to make a comparison between his world and the “real” world. For example in his painting, Flowers, 1964, has his viewer compare his flowers in the painting to flowers in real life (Bergin 359-363).

Lastly, Bergin finds Warhol’s death-image paintings the far most striking and interesting of all which really contribute to his argument that Warhol offers his image, his mask, for public consumption, but deprives the public of anything more. I find this evidence the most convincing. Warhol’s death-images, which he painted of news photographs, suicides, and auto accidents and then sometimes arranged them rows and repeated a number of times (Bergin 359-363). Bergin finds the end product striking, enigmatic, and a visual experience (Bergin 359-363). He says that the death images, when stacked up force the viewer to do a double take, and force him to consider the picture longer than he might have and finally force him, if he is observing the canvas at all (Bergin 359-363). Bergin concludes his article saying, if the validity of Warhol's art depends on his actually becoming the machine, it surely fails (Bergin 359-363). It takes a lot to see the true meaning Warhol’s art and someone who does not have a trained eye, like myself, won’t be able to fully understand what Warhol is trying to say in his paintings. It takes a lot more than knowing art and seeing lots of Warhol’s artwork to understand Warhol himself, but that’s the way Warhol wanted it. He wanted to offer his image for public consumption, but deprive the public of anything more.

Works Cited:
Bergin, Paul. "The Artist as Machine." College Art Association. 26.04 (1967): (359-363). Web. 20 Nov. 2011. <http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/stable/pdfplus/775065.pdf?acceptTC=true>.

Nicolas Chaperon Expressions Through Mythology

Ramifications of Detail

Leonardo da Vinic: Expressoins in Paintings

In my past years, art has not been one of my hobbies to study. Today I have come across an interesting article by Kim Veltman about an artist that goes by the name Leonardo da Vinci. He was born in 1452, about 2 years before the printing press was invented. Leonardo da Vinci would travel around with little notebooks that he would keep is artwork in. When it came to his work it was fairly basic and simple but yet he would create wonderful detailed artwork. The work was so detailed that when he wanted to print his work, it was difficult. The author gives off the impression that she in a way glorifies Leonardo da Vinci by his work. Kim believes that without Leonardo da Vinci then the Renaissance would have become of anything.
Kim goes into detail on the little aspects of the great artist. She explains how Leonardo had two little notebooks that he would keep is drawing in when he travelled. One was used to focus on the world of nature, animals, and human beings. The other one was used to pay more attention to focused on the man-made world which consists of machines, fortifications, and inventions. “Although Leonardo is typically called a universal man, it was mainly as an artist that he was known and then mainly in terms of a handful of masterpieces such as Mona Lisa and the Last Supper”( Veltman,3). It is amusing to realize how he is such an artist that he “idealizes scenes”(Veltman,3) in a way that portrays him to be the kind of person that would have loved to use a digital camera as he travelled to the different countries perhaps. The author claims that the influence that Leonardo had one the art culture is how much of the Renaissance developed. The Renaissance was a period of growth in the artistic world. This was a time period where imagination and innovation expanded upon many individuals and expressions where seen through paintings and other forms of similar works of art.
The points that Kim Veltman made about Leonardo da Vinci make me believe that he was an inspiration to the whole art culture. In fact far more is known about his thought and the great range of his mind than of the events and circumstances of his life, especially its early stages. His impact on the Italian Renaissance was crucial enough to impact the world. Her whole article depicts the side of Leonardo da Vinci being a great artist. In the article it also explains how other painters also believe in the impact that Kim has portrayed.

In conclusion, Leonardo da Vinci was a great painter and played a huge role in influencing others to bring new ideas to art. Without da Vinci, the Italian Renaissance may not have become of anything. I assume that Kim Veltman must have been personally influenced by Leonardo’s paintings because of the way she speaks about his work with such grace and honor.

                                                                          

Works Cited

Veltman, Kim H. "Leonardo Da Vinci: A Review." Leonardo 41.4 (2008): 381-388. Academic

Search Premier. Web. 20 Nov. 2011.

Analysis of a Pop Art Painting at Ackland Art Museum

Noli Me Tangere by Gerard Seghers

"The Last Supper" With Leonardo da Vinci.

Andy Warhol's Marilyn Monroe

Analysis of the Painting Styles of Georgia O'Keeffe

Photography as Historical Documentation

    Robin Kelsey’s article “Of Fish, Birds, Cats, Mice, Spiders, Flies, Pigs, and
Chimpanzees: How Chance Casts the Historic Action Photograph into Doubt,” seeks to address why some photographs are acclaimed as pieces of history while others or not.  She suggests that chance discredits some photographs as historical events.  Kelsey centers his study on Joe Rosenthal’s popular image of the soldiers planting the flag on top of Iowa Jima.  The arguments that he uses to suggest that pictures may not be a relevant piece of historical information include several zoological analogies designed to cast doubt upon the accuracy of the portrayal of various acts of history by popular photographs.
    Robin Kelsey first analogy is of a fisherman.  On a fishing expedition, two fisherman hooked two fish at the same time.  They were fishing in Alaska for lingcod and halibut.  One fisherman caught a 82.6 pound lingcod that broke records. The other fisherman caught a 210 pound halicut.  When both men hooked the fish, the other men on the ship focused on the fisherman who had hooked the 210 pound halicut.  This is a large fish but less than half the record size for this particular fish.  It was only after the two fish were brought on deck that the men on the ship recognized the significance of the lingcod’s mass.  Robin Kelsey finds this analogy revelent to Joe Rosenthal’s picture because Rosenthal did not know the significance of the photograph of the flag raising at Iowa Jima.  In fact Rosenthal took several pictures of the flag after it was placed.  These pictures included the soldiers in a celabratory pose underneath the flag with rifles raised triumphantly.  Rosenthal delivered the photographs for development and the developer sent the famous picture of the flag raising to Guam.  By the next morning the photograph had been placed in many major newspapers accross the United States.  When Rosenthal learned of this, he expected that the photograph of the soldiers posing had recieved special attention, not the photograph of the flag raising.  In fact, the photograph of the flag raising was not posed, and Rosenthal hastily took the picture, almost missing the oppurtunity.  Thus, chance has placed the significance on Rosenthal’s ‘lucky catch.’ Rosenthal argues that this act of chance marginalizes the historical importance of many historical action photographs.  He explains that many of the people that have viewed the photograph feel betrayed when they learn that this was the second flag raised at this famous battleground.  One of the general’s suggested that the flag that was placed after the battle was to small.  This larger flag was then placed into the soil, giving Rosenthal his oppurtunity to capture his pullitzer winning photograph.  

The second way that Kelsey uses the fisherman analogy is to determine the significance of a photograph.  She suggests that, unlike a fish, a photograph cannot be quantitately measured for significance.  A fish may be weighed to determine whether it is a record breaking fish.  Each photograph has unique qualities and no set rule for determination of quality.  Kelsey proceeds to analyze the stature and position of the flag, flagpole and the men.  The men are spanned from left to right in the photograph and the flag pole crosses the picture diagonally.  The repetitive body positions of the man and there close proximity to one another suggests unity and teamwork.  The man at the far right is at a larger distance from the men and is standing in a muscular position deliberately placing the end of the flag pole.  Kelsey suggests that this man represents leadership emerging from unity. Kelsey suggests that because of qualitative information that is broadcast through photographs, photographs may not be considered for there historical accuracy.  Kelsey provides a famous picture of Vietnamese children running from a Napalm Strike.  She then reveals a second photograph where the viewpoint has changed to include another still image photographer in the image.  The first image was successful while the second was not.  Kelsey writes that the presence of the photographer in photograph is what ruined the appeal of the photograph to the general public.  While the inclusion of the photographer is historically accurate, it changes the visual appeal.  Kelsey uses this as further proof that chance and success of photographs lower the historical attributes of popular action history photographs.

The second analogy chosen to support Robin Kelsey’s article relates Joe Rosenthal’s photograph to a cuckoo.  A mother cuckoo will lay an egg in the nest of another bird.  When that egg hatches, the baby bird will proceed to roll the other eggs out of the nest.  The mother bird will continue to watch the cuckoo until the cuckoo leaves the nest.  The mother cuckoo arbitrairily picks a nest.  Just as fame for a photograph may arbitrarily pick a photographer.  Kelsey argues that Rosenthal did not intend to capture the much repeated photograph of the flag raising when he opened the shutter.  He merely saw an oppurtunity for a photograph and took it.  The other way that this analogy works is to suggest that the photograph feeds off the information that the viewer infers from the photograph.  Whether accurate or inaccurate, such as the case when viewers of Joe Rosenthal’s picture feel they are examining the first flag raising after the major battle of Iowa Jima.  As a mother bird thinks she is feeding her own child.

Robin Kelsey explains the opposing view point that the significance of a photograph is captured instantly by the eye of an experienced photographer.  The analogy he uses to describe this is a spider tracking a fly or a cat tracking a mouse.  When the predator sees his opportunity he takes it.  Similarly a photographer would see the oppurtunity for an important photograph and capture it.  However, Robin Kelsey discredits this belief because there are no criteria to distinguish a photograph taken at the right moment by a master photographer from a photograph stumbled upon by chance.  He argues that because Rosenthal himself was not aware of the significance of his photograph of the second flag raising, it must be considered blind luck.

Robin Kelsey’s last analogy is to a group of chimps striking keys at random.  He suggests that if a chimp sat at a keyboard long enough he would reproduce a completed work.  He suggests that if someone takes enough pictures they will chance upon a photograph of some significance.  He suggests that this analogy is valid because Rosenthal himself commented on his blind luck in the capture of the famous moment in Iowa Jima.

The most convincing argument in the piece that would discredit historical validity of action historical images is the comparison of the two images in Iowa Jima and the two images of the children fleeing the napalm in Vietnam.  The reasoning behind which photograph made it big and which did not was the staple point of the article.

Vincent Van Gogh: Artistic Genious or Mental?

Known for the eerie beauty in his artwork, nineteenth century artist Vincent Van Gogh is well known for his painting “Starry Night”. While most of us are solely familiar with this piece of Van Gogh’s artwork, others pieces tend to resemble that same sense of espionage with its symbolic textures. Patricia Matthews author of “Aurier and Van Gogh: Criticism and Response”, analyzes Albert Aurier’s analysis of Van Gogh’s artwork. Albert Aurier was a nineteenth century art critic and artist himself who lived during the time period of Van Gogh. In article, Matthews includes many direct quotations that Aurier made regarding Vincent Van Gogh’s artwork and includes several paintings to exemplify these ideas. Overall, it seems most obvious that Albert Aurier considered Van Gogh’s work to be highly symbolical in a twisted yet dazzling way.

    Van Gogh often distorted images of nature such as trees and mountains to convey various symbolic messages. This method of portraying nature in his artwork was fairly consistent throughout many of his paintings and have deep metaphorical implications. Van Gogh considered himself a “highly sensitive” artist and he felt as though he “lost consciousness” when he was painting through his emotions. Van Gogh was a very unconventional artist, thus his work received a great deal of criticism.
    Patricia Matthews spends the majority of this scholarly article talking about the critical remarks that Albert Aurier made regarding Van Gogh’s artwork. For example, in response to Van Gogh’s piece Cypresses, Aurier responds to how the trees are “twisted like battling giants”, and how the bright colors “set fire onto themselves”. Aurier states that these paintings give off a very radiant vibe which is fairly obvious after viewing Van Gogh’s artwork. Aurier stated that it seemed that Van Gogh felt as though nature was its own being and had a mind of its own. While observing this artwork, it is hard to disagree with how Aurier responded to Van Gogh’s artwork. Images of nature truly are distorted to convey a sense of personality within the trees, mountains, clouds, etc.
    Aurier also stated that the one of the main feelings that Van Gogh’s pieces give off is that of ecstasy and exaggeration. Based on viewing the piece Mountains at St. Remy, it is clear that the overall shape and representation of the mountains are very distorted. While some might interpret it as distortion, others, including Aurier interpreted it as overwhelming and fascinating. I myself feel that this painting is quite interesting. It seems as though Van Gogh interpreted the mountains as living and moving beings. Overall, I feel that Aurier’s interpretations of Van Gogh’s work are very convincing. The analysis that he made regarding various paintings are quite accurate seeing that they go beyond what the common viewer would see. In this article, it is obvious that Aurier is a professional art critic and his opinions are even more convincing since he lived during the time that many of these pieces were constructed.
    Throughout this article, we see detailed analysis and opinions that Albert Aurier makes regarding Vincent Van Gogh’s artwork. From this article, it is obvious that Aurier had a general feeling of bedazzlement about Van Gogh’s paintings and that they were all highly symbolic. While it is common to hear criticism of older pieces of art by those studying art today, I feel that since this article represents Van Gogh’s art by someone who lived over a century ago is compelling. It is truly informational to hear a professional art critic’s response to one of the most famous artists known in history to better understand the symbolism of art.

Flag Raising Photograph Comparison

Study of Video Games part 2