Week One: Post #1 (Introduction to the Avant-Garde)

In my opinion the avant-garde was and is a new type of art that is contrary to the style and thought system that was prevalent in the nineteenth century and before. It is art that is conscious of itself as art, and is not trying to be a photograph or window into the realistic world. Originally it was thought of as means to lead society to good, and transitioned into something like creating art for the sake of art. Perhaps then avant-garde art attempts to better the world through beauty, aesthetics, being revolutionary, reactionary and innovative. Avant-garde art relies on tradition and art of the past in order to have something to react against, the heavy textured brush strokes of Manet for example.

I think for something to be avant-garde it needs to reference itself as art, through art history or through the technique used to create it. It also needs to be created in reaction to something, weather that is an art reference or a reference to the times I think it needs to speak to the viewer in a way that something is recognized in the style or aesthetics or in subject matter. When I think of avant-garde I automatically think of abstract expressionism, for some reason this is a deep association that I can not even trace… Now I realize there is so much more to the story going back to the artists Manet and Cezanne. Yet even in this understanding my mind immediately still jumps to abstract expressionism. I am excited to see this change and have my ideas broadly expanded.

As far as Manet’s Luncheon on the Grass is concerned I know that in its time it was extremely challenging to the viewer. I believe that even today it still poses challenges, especially to the person trying to understand how he was able to kick-start this new movement. Firstly the subject matter must have been startling to the original viewer; today it is out of context to the uninformed viewer. But to the original viewer seeing what to them was obviously a modern prostitute must have been wild. The men are wearing clothing that was not fit for the occasion, like the smoking hat for indoors for example. The woman’s clothing is right there for the viewer to see leaving no question that this is a modern woman. Then there are the stylistic differences like the perspective being much flatter and the woman in the background being much too large. The texture was completely unfinished in comparison with the works of the academy that were polished and finished with no visible brush strokes. This piece was avant-garde because it was challenging the school of thought and the academy and it was using modern day subject matter as well as new techniques that still required refined and amazing skills and craft yet were more, wild and would have looked messy to the viewer of the day.

Week Ten: Post #9

I will have to say that throughout all the time periods we studied I was most struck by the work from Northern Europe. In comparison to the work created in Italy and the south. I appreciated the darkness of the images created in a colder and more harsh environment. In particular I enjoyed the work from the fifteenth century in Northern Europe and the work of Jan van Eyck most of all. I found myself very drawn to the interest in naturalism and the high level of detail that the artists of this period were able to produce. I was also most impressed by the artist ability to create these paintings that seem so advanced in skill for a time when they did not even have a strong handle on how perspective works! I loved the luminous colors and rich textures that were able to be incorporated through the invention and use of oil paint. I think that most of all the naturalism and realness of the work is what attracted me to this period of art in the north compared to the more idealized work that was created in the south.

Particularly I love the piece, Double Portrait of a Giovanni Arnolfini and His Wife the iconography used in the mirror is amazing to me. I have a real tendency to think of people in history as stupid or primitive and I think I enjoy this painting so much in particular because it proves me wrong. I am very drawn to the calculated way in which Jan van Eyck made every decision involved in creating this piece. I love what is spelled out clearly in the painting for example the fact that van Eyck included his own name above the mirror; Jan Van Eyck was here, but also what remains a mystery. Like, is the woman depicted pregnant? So much is crystal clear in this painting except for things that should seem obvious. What event is being portrayed in this painting I love the juxtaposition.

Another piece of Jan van Eyck that I really enjoyed was the self portrait Man in a Red Turban. This again blew my mind with the complexity of thinking behind the piece. The inscription reading “As I can, [but not as I would]” forming an anagram of his own name this seems so crazy to me for the period. It shows that I have a lot to learn about history in general. I love the extreme detail portrayed in this portrait. I also love the use of chiaroscuro and other techniques that did not even exist during the period. It is amazing how easy it is to see the influence of Jan van Eyck’s work throughout the future generations of artist in the north, Albrecht Durer in particular. All of the work created in the north in the fifteenth century I found to be amazingly beautiful and so advanced. This seems to be what I liked most of all the works of Jean Fouquet and Rogier van der Weyden really expanded my mind as far as what art could be in this time period.