Day 26 – Know Your Craft

I’m spending one more day discussing Ansel Adams because I felt I couldn’t move on until I mentioned his contributions to the technical side of photography. Adams did more than just point a camera at a scene and shoot. Although that’s probably an overly obvious observation, I was impressed by Adams dedication to developing his technical skill in photography.  

For example, he used glossy paper to intensify tonal values. He used different apertures and exposures to capture sharp details and have a long range of focus. He developed the “Zone System” with the help of his friend Fred Archer. This was to determine the optimal exposure and development time for a photograph. I don’t pretend to really understand any of what any of that means. (Although, Adams taught thousands of students in photography workshops over the course of many years. So if he was still around I’m sure he would have been happy to teach me!) Adams also produced ten volumes of technical manuals on photography, and was a consultant to a few companies which sell camera equipment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansel_Adams; http://www.anseladams.com/ansel-adams-information/ansel-adams-biography/).

My point is that he worked very hard at photography, his craft. I don’t even know that much about photography, but when I look at his work I can tell it’s special. And I really enjoy seeing his photographs. It’s a joy to see art that’s well done, whether it’s a painting, a photograph, or an ancient Egyptian carving. Adams photography is well done. I hope that I remember, in whatever endeavors I take on, to do my best and ensure that whoever sees my work knows I poured true effort into my task!

And because I can’t resist… here’s one more Ansel Adams photograph:

Xoxo,

Diana

Day 8 – Fauvism and *Another* Lawyer Turned Artist. Le Sigh

Today I spent time reading about Fauvism (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/fauv/hd_fauv.htm). The Fauvism movement was known for using brilliant colors and spontaneous brushwork. This intense, emotional style eventually gave way to Cubism, but before it did several artists experimented with the Fauve style.

Henri Matisse was a name listed among the Fauvist artists which I recognized (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/mati/hd_mati.htm). Matisse had a career that lasted over six decades! And… he was originally trained as a lawyer. (Seriously- I think I might need to find a second career that lets me be creative. It seems a lot of former lawyers have!) Matisse was a prolific artist who experimented with a variety of painting styles, including Impressionism, Neo-Impressionism, and, briefly, Fauvism. He also dabbled in sculpture and even book illustration! One of his Fauve paintings was The Young Sailor (pictured below). You can see the intense colors and spontaneous brushwork. I’m not so much a fan of the brushwork but I do like the colors. I’m not sure what else to say about this style- I feel like the closer and closer I get to modern times the less I like the artwork.

Next up will be Cubism, which was created by Picasso. I’m already pretty sure I won’t be a fan, but I’ll save a more in depth discussion for tomorrow. In the meantime, here’s that Matisse painting. Happy Weekend, everyone!

Xoxo,

Diana

Day 7 – Is “Crazy” (or being an Incan Savage) a Requirement for a Good Artist?

I got some coffee creamer yesterday, so I put the green tea away and switched back to coffee today. By the way, I love coffee but I don’t necessarily consider myself a coffee snob. Sometimes I buy really expensive coffee online, sometimes I pick up a bag of beans at Starbucks, and sometimes I grab stuff from the sale bin at Target. Today’s selection was one of those sale bin specialties – Target Brand White Chocolate Strawberry Coffee. If you’re wondering how the heck Target flavored their coffee like white chocolate strawberries, you would be justified in doing so. Let’s just say it smells delicious while brewing and tastes like chemicals when you actually drink it. Thank goodness I had a fresh supply of creamer to take the edge off a bit.

So today while drinking coffee creamer with a bit of coffee, I continued reading some about Post Impressionism. I browsed through some information on Paul Cézanne and Georges Seurat, but today’s real find came when I read a biography page on Paul Gaugin (find it here: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/gaug/hd_gaug.htm).  I have to admit today’s blog strays a little bit away from a review of the actual art and into gossip tabloid-esque territory… but I really can’t help it when I read things like “Descended on his mother's side from Peruvian nobility, [Gaugin] spent his early childhood in Lima. He would later misrepresent his ancestry to portray himself as an Incan savage” and “Gauguin encouraged van Gogh to paint as he himself did, from memory and imagination… rather than from motifs in nature. Their collaboration ended abruptly when van Gogh had a mental breakdown and cut off part of his left ear.” Seriously, is it a requirement that you have to be a little crazy to be creative? I mean, we have here a fake Incan savage and someone who cut off his ear. There’s a lot more interesting information in the biography- I encourage you to give this one a read. I can only imagine the US Weekly covers if these artists were alive and famous today. Is it necessary to be a little crazy to create this level of art, and, if so, is it worth it for humanity? Sure, we have some awesome art thanks to these guys, but maybe they would have personally been better off in a bit more stable of a career? I’m not sure there is a good answer to that question. You have to take care of yourself, but you also have to follow your passion, I think.

Gaguin poured a lot into his art. He started out as an Impressionist, but eventually moved past this and set the stage for Fauvism and Expressionism (which I definitely need to study some as I continue my art journey). He spent time living in Tahiti, which  influenced his painting. His masterpiece was painted while he was there, and is entitled Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going? (pictured below). It’s an allegorical painting known as a culmination of his art. I’m not sure how I feel about, except to say that the title itself definitely shows Gaguin had a troubled, searching heart. The painting seems busy and tense to me. I like the colors, but that is about it. Something about it moves you, though. Perhaps it is knowing that Gaguin was troubled. Although I’m not sure I understand the technical merit of the painting, seeing the title and feeling the haunting emotion behind the painting makes it hard for me to just dismiss it outright. Is emotion the most important aspect to art?

I’m not quite sure how to answer that question.

Xoxo, Diana

Day 4 - Dalmatians and Impressionism

I decided to spend another day learning a little bit about Impressionism, since I’ve only really read about specific artists or works and not on the broader topic of Impressionism itself. I read through the National Gallery’s Guide to Impressionism (find it here: http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/learn-about-art/guide-to-impressionism/guide-to-impressionism/*/viewPage/1), and realized that Claude Monet was an Impressionist. This is probably not news to most people, however, let’s review: I am pretty much completely illiterate when it comes to art.

Monet is a famous name in art - famous enough that I think most people would recognize the name even if they don’t know he was an Impressionist. The first time I remember hearing about Monet is when I was twelve years old and taking painting lessons at a Hobby Lobby. At this point in my life, I was obsessed with puppies, as I think most girls are at some point during their childhood. Specifically, I was obsessed with Dalmatians, since I was lucky enough that my parents had allowed us to get a Dalmatian puppy. The only thing I wanted to paint was Dalmatian puppies. I painted Dalmatians in gardens, at the beach, and even in a gift box. I wasn’t a particularly talented painter, but I had fun creating these tributes to Dalmatians. The teacher did her best to not only teach us some about painting, but also to introduce us to some well-known painters. I remember Monet because she showed us his work, Bridge Over a Pond of Water Lilies (pictured below), and I liked it so much I decided to break my streak of Dalmatian paintings and paint a water-lily pond. So, I guess, even back then I was a fan of the Impressionists. I just didn’t pay enough attention to remember the term Impressionism.

Now, I’m rediscovering Impressionism. One snippet from the National Gallery’s guide that I found interesting was that “…significant to the Impressionists was an interest in the way in which the human mind processes what it sees. When we look at a landscape, or a crowd of people, we do not instantly see every face, or leaf in detailed focus, but as a mass of colour and light. Impressionist painters tried to express this experience.” I like this aspect of these paintings. Sometimes it’s nice to not focus on details, but on an overall experience. Maybe art viewed in this light is more attractive in a certain sense. There’s no pressure to find specific details, but rather the freedom to enjoy an overall experience. Something to think about at least.

Xoxo, 

Diana

Day 3 - Moms in Art

This morning I decided to look a bit into mothers portrayed in art, since today is Mother’s Day. I’m very excited about Mother’s Day this year, since it’s my very first one. I was hoping my seven week old daughter would decide to scream and cry a little less today as a Mother’s Day present, but she seemed unimpressed by the holiday and continued on with business as usual. Oh well, c’est la vie.

I simply googled “motherhood in art” and came across this four and a half minute lecture from the Metropolitan Museum of Art. (Find it here: http://www.metmuseum.org/connections/motherhood/). This is the perfect snippet of information to watch over morning coffee. The lecturer, Jean Sorabella, talked a bit about how she rarely sees an image where it appears that the mother has work to do- most of the mothers she comes across in works of art seem to have perfect angel children. These moms have it all together. Of course, this is not reality, and the idealizations of the moms in the works Sorabella presented did irk me a bit. It gave me the same kind of feeling of annoyance I get when someone asks me if my newborn is sleeping through the night yet. People have been asking me this since she was just days old, when of course she was not sleeping through the night. But, everyone seems very concerned that my daughter causes the least amount of disruption in my life. Obviously, anyone who has kids or has spent much time around people who do have kids knows that kids cause a lot of disruption. It’s just the way it is. But the art Sorabella presented seemed to follow the general trend I’ve seen of idealizing motherhood instead of portraying it as the hard work that it is. This kind of annoyed me, but I might be particularly sensitive to this right now since I'm a first time mom with a newborn and a bit overwhelmed with the responsibility.

The lecture did introduce me to Mary Cassatt, whose works mainly portray motherhood. I did a little bit of quick research on Cassatt and I enjoyed viewing some of her pieces. Coincedentally, she was an impressionist, so she fits right in with the works I’ve been looking into over the last few days. Below is one of her works I came across and liked, titled Summertime. With summer looming around the corner, it seemed appropriate and put a smile on my face.

Enjoy, and Happy Mother’s Day to all the moms out there!

Xoxo, 

Diana

Day 2 - The Story Behind the Artist

I decided to spend my coffee time today looking a bit into the Impressionists, at the recommendation of my friend and former professor, “Doc Rose.” Doc Rose was one of my favorite professors in undergrad- I took a linguistics class from her. Linguistics was known as a very difficult, scary class at my university, but it was a required class to graduate if you were an English major. Since I was only an English minor (my major was psychology), I wasn’t actually required to take Linguistics to graduate. Spurred on by a love of all things language (ok, and perhaps a little bit of pride that “just because I was only an English minor and not major, that did NOT mean I was incapable of handling the highly dreaded Linguistics), I took the class anyways. I’m glad I did – the class was challenging but not impossible, and I enjoyed the content. (Yes, even the diagramming sentences part. Grammar nerd alert.) Doc Rose and I still keep in touch via Facebook, and when she read my blog yesterday she told me she likes the Impressionists, particularly Gustave Caillebotte. Since Doc Rose has never steered me wrong on literature recommendations, I decided to take her art recommendation and check out the Impressionists.

So, this morning, I found myself drinking a hot cup of Joe while reading the Wikipedia page for Mr. Caillebotte. By the way, I have a love/hate relationship with Wikipedia. I still (rightly!) refuse to use it for formal research, but I must admit it’s often a good starting place for learning about a new topic about which you know nothing. After reading the Wikipedia page, I was intrigued. I found out that Caillebotte went to law school and was licensed to practice law. I’m always interested when I see someone who was a lawyer pursuing a different career path, since I’m a lawyer but sometimes many times wonder what else is out there for me. Reading Caillebotte’s story made me interested in seeing some of his work. Lucky for me, one of his most famous paintings, Paris Street; Rainy Day (pictured below), is owned by the Chicago Art Institute. I’m going to try to get by there this month and see it. The real take away from this morning, however, is that I enjoyed hearing the story of the artist himself, and this is what made me interested to learn more about and see some of his art. It’s too soon to say, but perhaps it will never be the beauty of a painting itself that moves me, but rather the story behind the artist. Does this count as “liking art,” even if I don’t necessarily have an interest in the mechanics and technique of certain styles of art?

Xoxo,

Diana

Day 1 - Do I even LIKE art?

So, this morning, as I drank my cup of coffee, I took a few minutes to think about what topic I would like to learn more about for the first month of this project. I tossed around a few ideas in my head and decided that I'd like to take the next month to explore the world of art. I'm interested in exploring further the type of art I've found at museums, such as paintings, sculptures, etc. (I know, I know, this is an extremely broad category. Bear with me).

As I thought about this, I realized that I've often listed "Art" as an interest in "About Me" sections of social media sites. But do I really like art? Or do I only say I like it because that's what educated, worldly people are supposed to say? My formal experience with art started with an introductory art appreciation class in college, a requirement for my undergraduate degree. It was a broad survey of pretty much every type of art imaginable, and the only thing I remember is that we watched the movie Babette's Feast as an example of art in film. I thought the movie was okay, but also thought that it was strange that, out of all the movies in the world that we could have possibly watched to exemplify film as art, that movie was chosen. Ladies and gentlemen,  that is all I took away from my 3-credit-hour formal art education.

Apparently undeterred by my failure to actually learn anything about art from my university class, I have continued to say that "art" is one of my hobbies. When I visit a new city, I dutifully visit at least one of its art museums. (See below for one of my favorite pictures from one of these trips - my 2011 visit to the Seattle Art Museum. What's not to love about a giant rodent?!?). I stare at paintings and old pottery and even old beer cans strung across an old fence post (hello, modern art), and I nod as though it moves me and I understand what it all means. But I don't. Should I?

Should I spend time finding ways to actually learn about and explore art? Will this enrich my life and make me happy? This is actually a question that has been bothering me for a while, and my goal for this month is to answer it. I appreciate and respect art in a broad sense, but that's not really enough for me to list it as an interest or hobby. Do I truly enjoy "art" and, if so, which kinds? I might try to visit some of the museums here in Chicago and reflect on that experience, but since I've spent a lot of time in museums I would love other suggestions on how to discover more about art. Are there books I should read, websites I should visit, podcasts that discuss the topic? Is there a type of art that you love or that really speaks to you? How did you discover your love for it? It's time for me to finally decide whether I love art, or just love appearing to be someone who loves art.

Oh, and here's that giant rodent I promised you:

Xoxo,

Diana