1966, For Which I have No Clever Title. Hey Wait--

     The next piece of art we'll be taking a look at is more of a tone piece.  This is "In The Dull Village" by David Hockney:

"In The Dull Village" - 1966

     The first thing to note about this etching is that it is based on "In The Dreary Village" by Greek poet Constantine Cavafy.  The poem has several different translations, all of which are inanely difficult to locate, but the story is more or less the same in each one:

In a dreary, destitute, dull village

far beyond the back of beyond

(so it seems to him)

a handsome young man

is store assistant.

He's longing to get to the bright lights

(such they appear, viewed from the squalor here)

of the nearest glowing city, 

music and dancing and song.

For now, he waits for trade to slacken off

in two or three months it's bound to happen

Then he can escape.

Meantime in the dreary village

asleep in his single bed

after hot hours of longing and regret

there comes to him in all its beautiful sparkle

the hallowed shape of satisfied desire.

     In the etching, we see two men, naked from the waist up, laying in bed together.  One man looks relaxed, perhaps sleeping with his hands behind his head.  The surprise on the face of the man next to him suggests that this etching is an interpretation of the final stanza of the poem.

     Both the poem and the etching depict, above anything else, a sense of boredom and complacency.  The poem does so by textually expressing a longing for something more, and having that longing manifest itself in some uncertain form.  The etching depicts this tone more in the framing, style, and placement of everything.

     Note the outlines: thin, very non-obtrusive.  This gives the whole thing a very downplayed feel.  The angle at which the audience views the scene taking place is very flat and unassuming.  The biggest break from this uniformity is the sleeping man on the left.  His bold, dark body hair, not to mention the large black shape above his head certainly draw attention to him and place him squarely outside the reality of the rest of the etching.  His bedfellow, too, seems incapable of believing his presence.  Add to it, the sheer number of differences in the appearance of the two men: The sleeping man is hairy, and has a mustache, and short, dark, combed hair; the other man is hairless, clean-shaven, and has longer, messy blond hair.  

     Since the poem indicates in the "handsome young man" a desire for the city life to break from the dull monotony of the village life, it only makes sense that the "hallowed shape of satisfied desire" would be represented by someone completely anterior to himself.  

     As for Hockney's decision to depict two men, rather than a man and a woman: the boy in the poem longs for the life of hedonism found in the city, indulging in one's innermost desires.  It would not be much of a stretch to believe that a young man in such a dull, repressive village as the one depicted would have unexplored homosexual tendencies, for which he feels the city would be a suitable outlet.  Not to mention the fact that Cavafy was one of the first poets to write about homosexuality.

My Opinion

     I don't like this piece as much as I am intrigued by it.  Usually when there are works that exist in multiple mediums to tell different parts of a cohesive story, I become fascinated.  Obviously, since art is a subjective medium, there is no way of knowing every possible detail between the two interconnected pieces, and this just sends my brain into a euphoria of deduction.  I always have to try and fill in what's missing, I want to be the one to figure it out, and I feel like there are unsolved mysteries between these two works.  I can't say for sure why, but there's just something about them...

     Well, that's all for now!  Hope you stop by next time!

     

Are You Ready for 1965? 1965 is Ready for You

     How have I not included anything from Salvador Dali up to this point?  Ah well, here's "La Gare de Perpignan."

"La Gare de Perpignan" - 1965

     Discerning the symbolism of Dali's work is certainly not an exact science, but I can take a crack at it.  This painting is named after a train station in France called the Perpignan Railway Station.  It was here that Dali had a very profound vision about the origin of the universe in 1963.  This vision led him to declare this train station "the center of the universe."  In light of this, the painting is likely meant to symbolize exactly that.  We see the locomotive (representing the station itself) being placed above Christ and the focal point of these great beams of light, which are the center of the universe.

     To the left, the image of a couple hoisting sacks of grain into a cart represent the value of hard work.  Next to them, a young boy holds his hat in front of him and looks toward the ground.  This body language is typically used to denote respect towards an authority figure (at least during this time period).  If I were to guess, I would say that this quadrant of the image represents the more positive forces in the universe.

     To the right, the outline of a couple fornicating is visible.  Just a ways off from them, a woman clasps her hands together and holds her head down, obviously in mourning.  This segment of the image also has a much cooler, bluer color scheme to it.  All these things together, as well as this quadrant's position opposite the one containing the good positive forces in the universe, lead me to believe that this represents the negative aspects of the universe, the examples given being sin and suffering.

     In addition to all this imagery, the theme of grain sacks is ever-present.  I feel this is meant to symbolize all that is to be gained from these different aspects of the universe.  If we look at the sacks on the positive side, they all have a more uniformly round, full look to them.  Conversely, on the side f negativity, we see the sacks, while certainly not empty, lack the fullness of their counterparts.  They are all limp around the midsection, still hollow.

     At the bottom of the painting, a child stares up at the center of the universe, with a sack of his own, filled with all he has experienced and learned through his childhood.  This child is neutrality.  He has yet to decide which side of the universe to gravitate towards, though he has taken steps in the direction of sin and suffering.  Perhaps he was tempted by the "pair" of shoes seen just above him to the right.  I put quotation marks around the word "pair" because one of the shoes appears to be merely a reflection of the other, perhaps representing the illusory advantages of instant material gratification.

My Opinion:

     I really love this painting.  The imagery is so evocative and engaging, even on a purely visual level: it's just nice to look at.  The colors are warm and smooth and the images presented are pleasing to the eye.  Definitely a fine piece of work from Mr. Dali.

Hope to see you again next time!

1964 Is A 'Go!'

     Today, we're going to be looking at a very profound piece of art.  So profound, in fact, that President Obama hung it in the White House.  Immediately upon seeing this painting, one becomes aware of its significance.  This painting is Norman Rockwell's "The Problem We All Live With."

"The Problem We All Live With" - 1964

     Now, let me start with the immediately noticeable: the title.  When you hear "The Problem We All Live With," what do you expect?  You likely expect (like I did) a depiction of some universal societal problem whose particular brand of annoyance we all have simply grown accustomed to.  But Rockwell has taken the road less traveled with this title.  Rather than showing something that people at the all had to deal with, he showed something that people at the time refused to deal with: the prejudice and mistreatment of African Americans.  Everyone simply lived with it.

     Moving on to the painting itself.  The eye is immediately drawn to the little black girl, just off from the center of the frame, so I'll start there.

     The girl in question is one Ruby Bridges.  Ruby was one of the first black children to be placed in a white-only school, in an effort towards desegregation.  If you want to learn more about her story, you can find it here.  Ruby's pose says a lot about what she represented at the time; her back is straight, her feet are positioned in a marching stance.  One of her hands is balled in a fist, the other wrapped tightly around her textbooks.  Her stance is one of resoluteness and bravery.  She knew the risks she would face, and she knew she might even be putting her life in danger, but she faced this challenge anyway.

     On either side of Ruby stand four U.S. Deputy Marshalls.  They are depicted mid-step of a very brisk walk.  What is striking about these men is the choice of color on their clothing.  Two of the men are depicted wearing grey suits, and the other two in more off-white colored suits.  Methinks this was no arbitrary decision.  Since none of these men are specifically wearing black or white, but are instead wearing shades of grey, this is likely a manifestation of the law enforcement attitude towards the situation.  They were neither in favor of or against integration (publicly, at least), but neutral: shades of grey.  Contrast this with the very striking colors used on Ruby, and the symbolism becomes pretty apparent.

     Moving on to the background, which contain two of my personal favorite details.

     The first thing of note is the tomato splattered on the wall.  At first glance, it looks like blood.  I'll let that speak for itself.  But the thing that caught my attention was the pattern of the splatter.  The individual streams seem to burst out from the center of the point of impact, which is normal.  But, at the top of the stain, there is a gap with more tomato juice around it that brings to mind the image of a powerful bird triumphantly soaring into the sky.  Seems like more than coincidence.

     The next background detail is the word "Nigger" right above Ruby.  What is interesting about it is the way it's written:  it's grey, faded, and wispy.  The way the letters are written are evocative of a vengeful ghost's warning written on the wall of a haunted house.  This could be seen as representing the haunting shadow of racism always looming over the African-American people.

My Opinion

     I think this painting is amazing.  Truly astonishing.  The way it's staged and the simplicity of it manages to say so much with so little.  It really is a spectacular piece of artwork ( I may even buy a print of it)  i don't really know what else to say about this painting.  It's fantastic.

Until next time!

1963 - Roy Lichtenstein and Pop Art

     Welcome back, folks!  For this post, I'll be doing something a little different.  instead of covering one specific work, I'm going to be covering a particular artist that had 4 pieces released this year!  I'm also going to speak a bit about the artistic movement he was a part of.

     The artist in question is one Roy Lichtenstein, and his four works are as follows:

"Drowning Girl" 1963

"In The Car" 1963

"Torpedo...Los!" 1963

"Whaam!" 1963

     Lichtenstein had a penchant for making works based on comic strip panels.  In fact, each of these works is based on existing panels.  I feel the best way to represent them is to go through each one individually.  So let's do that!

     "Drowning Girl" - Derived from Tony Abruzzo's panel in "Run For Love" from DC Comics' Secret Hearts #83.  Lichtenstein's painting is cropped significantly, omitting the entire scene occurring, and opting instead to just show the girl's face.  In addition, the text was changed from "I don't care if I have a cramp!  I'd rather sink than call Mel for help!" to "I don't care-- I'd rather sink than call Brad for help!"  Lichtenstein has stated the intention of this piece being to depict extreme melodrama.  Even the decision to change the boyfriend's name to Brad was in service of this.  Lichtenstein felt that Brad was a more cliche'd heroic boyfriend name.

     "In The Car" - Based on a panel from edition #78 of the series Girls' Romances.  The changes from the original panel are relatively minor.  The frame is moved down and cropped ever so slightly, since the text bubble has been removed.  In addition, a lot of the background details (speed lines, window reflections) have been simplified so as not to detract from the drama between the man and woman.  Also, the woman's hair had been let down, and flows out behind her, adding a more dramatic flair to the image.  This and the previous image followed a trend of depicting tense melodrama between a man and woman.

     "Torpedo...Los!" - Derived from a panel from DC Comics' Our Fighting Forces (edition unknown).  Many alterations have been made to the original image.  For one, the image has been cropped slightly and the frame moved down.  This makes the Captain the biggest, most dominating force in the frame.  In addition, the detailed, wordy declaration of the captain has been replaced with a shorter, more vague command.  In addition, the backdrop of the submarine and its periscope have been made to look more futuristic.

     "Whaam!" - Adapted from the story "Star Jockey," from All-American Men of War #89 by DC Comics.  The most immediate change to this panel is that the smoke trail of the torpedo has been moved under the plane wing, revealing more of the fuselage.  The text bubble on the left side of the frame has been moved towards the center, and the pilot's spoken text has been removed entirely.   The exploding plane in the picture is almost completely different form the original.  There is significantly less shown of the plane itself, and the artistic style of the explosion is very different.

A Brief Breakdown of Pop Art

     If you've ever forayed into the world of art history, you've undoubtedly heard of Pop Art.  The above piece was one of the earliest recorded pieces of Pop Art.  Pop Art emerged in the 1950s and served as a sort of counter-culture movement to the fine art of the period.  It often used cultural icons (especially those of the fine art it was fighting against, but also advertisements and comic books), and removed them from their original contexts, creating a more abstract, incongruous visual image with a very kitschy style to it.

My Opinion

     I'm a huge fan of Roy Lichtenstein's work.  This probably partially stems from the fact that I'm a big fan of comic book artwork and the pop art style.  I also like Lichtenstein's intent not to make any sort of bold, sweeping statement, but rather to portray and emotion or a situation with his art.  Can't really think of what else to say about Lichtenstein, so I'll leave it at this:  great art, check it out.  See you next time!

Post Number 2 - 1961

     Hello all, and welcome back!  Today, we'll be covering a piece of art from 1961.  It's a little piece by a fairly unknown artist, you may not have heard of him, went by the name M.C. Escher.

It's not the 60s without some trippy optical illusions, right?

     This piece is titled "Waterfall" and was created by M.C. Escher, as I mentioned.  If you don't know who M.C. Escher is, leave now here's a piece you may recognize:

Relativity, 1953.  I like to call it "Crazy Stairs"

     Now, one important thing to note about this piece (for the sake of the blog) is that it wasn't made in any particularly noteworthy period of time in Escher's life.  So, for this segment, I'm just going to talk about Escher in general and some interesting notes about this image in particular.

     M.C. Escher was most famous for his illustrated illusions, usually architectural in nature, that played with concepts such as tessellations and infinity.  The architectural aspect of his art was most likely inspired by his carpentry work as a young child until he was 13 years of age.  Escher was born Maurits Cornelius Escher (20 points to whoever can figure out where he came up with his nickname) in the Netherlands.  He was a sickly boy with a recurring skin infection.  Escher performed poorly in school and failed several times, while excelling at drawing (big surprise).

     Escher's first printed work was entitled "Still Life and Street."

Still Life and Street, 1937.

     Escher's style was definitely beginning to emerge in this piece, although it airs more on the side of surrealism than his later illusions.

     One interesting thing to note about "Waterfall" is that the titular waterfall and the paths of the aqueducts in the image create a Penrose Triangle.  

Obviously it's not exactly the same, but the principal is there.

     Another interesting little tidbit about "Waterfall"is that the very large plants in the bottom left-hand corner are actually magnified views of moss and Lichen that Escher drew in 1942 as part of a study.

And you thought he was just being weird.  Hava a little faith, will ya?

My Opinion

     I love this piece, in fact, I love most of Escher's work.  Who doesn't?  Even if you're not the type to look deeper into a piece of artwork and discover it's hidden meaning, you have to admit that there's a sense of fun to the impossible realities he creates.  One thing I've always been a fan of is using realism to create the unreal.  The technical side of Escher's work (form, style, etc.) is very much based in realism, but these techniques are used to create something impossible, and that's something I really admire.  You've no doubt seen Escher's work everywhere already, so if you're not a fan yet, you probably never will be.  But, if you live under a rock and love surrealism, definitely check his work out.   It's really great.

     Well, that's all for this entry.  Join me again next time!

First Post, Yaaaay!

     Well, here we are, with my first blog post regarding the art of the 60s and 70s.  First, I feel I should make a small note regarding a change to the format of the blog.  Instead of sticking with themes in terms of artistic movements, I'm going to simply pick one piece from each year of both decades.

     So, without further ado, allow me to introduce our first piece!  Starting in 1960:

Sorry about the watermark, folks.  This isn't the most readily available painting on the net

     This piece is entitled "Les Cornes Du Desir," or "The Horns of Desire."  The artist is Rene Magritte.  Now, you may recognize the name, or even the style, if you're extra fancy.  Magritte is most famous for this work:

I wonder if he's ever gotten hungry with that apple in front of him all the time?

     "The Horns of Desire" is from a period of Magritte's career defined as the "Mature" period, that began officially in 1949.  Prior to this period, Magritte had briefly forayed into surrealism during his "Vache" period.  

La Belle Captive (The Fair Captive), 1947.  A demonstration of Magritte's attempt at surrealism.
Opinions vary, I'm sure, but I'm not a fan.

     His "Mature" period can be viewed as a return to, and a polishing of the style Magritte had introduced during his "Sunlit" period.  The style is still very much present: the majority of the piece is based in realism, but the almost dull aesthetic of the piece is offset by various elements of surrealism, often in favor of some form of symbolism. 

L'Aiguinon (The Goad), 1943.  A woman with a devil tail.  Case in point. 

     So somehow, Magritte's foray into surrealism actually made his previous style cleaner and crisper, with much more solid brush strokes, more minute details, and sharper edges.

My Opinion

     I personally love "Les Cornes Du Desir," and in fact have been a passive fan of Magritte's for a while now.  In fact, his style really reflects a lot of my own personal tastes.  When I was young, I started out wanting to be entirely realistic in my drawing style.  When I realized that that wasn't my thing, I moved into more cartoony and surreal territories.  However, my roots remained ingrained in realism, and that's a lot of what Magritte's style has going on that makes it so unique.

     His use of stilted, static images really emphasizes the off-kilter nature of the elements of surrealism in his paintings.  Overall, I'd say Magritte is definitely an artist to learn more about.

     I know I may have cheated a bit by including him here, since the 60s weren't really his time period, but I figured I should start with something I'm familiar with.

So, that's one entry in the can, and at least 19 more to go!  I hope you've enjoyed reading and learning just as much as I've enjoyed writing :)

-Bryan S.

Introductory Post

     Hello all!  Welcome to my blog!  Here I will attempt to delve deeper into a facet of art in which, I'll admit, my knowledge is a bit lacking.  And that facet is, if you couldn't already tell, art history.  Now, of course it would be foolish to attempt to cover all of the history of art, and that's not my intent.  My intent is to learn about art in a time period that interests me the most.  That era would be the 60s and 70s.

     Now, as a film major, obviously my initial exposure to this time period was through - can you guess? - That's right!  Film!  But, I'm not completely oblivious; I know that there were a lot of revolutions in the realm of visual arts during this time period (I've taken history classes before).

     My hope is that, throughout this experience, I learn as much as I possibly can about art art through the 60s and 70s, and maybe you do too.  This is mainly a learning tool for me, but I hope that at least some of the info I present will be new or interesting to anyone who might read this.

     So, this is how this blog will be laid out.  Each blog entry will contain:

• A new piece of artwork, pertaining to whatever art movement is the theme of that series of blog posts (different movements will take different amounts of time to cover, and therefore, different numbers of blog posts).
• Background info on that piece of artwork.  Usually this will be who the artist is, where they were artistically at the time the piece was created, and what the social and political climate was at the time.  At times, I may instead opt to cover an artist, when their works are so prolific and numerous that choosing just one is impossible.
• My own personal review / opinion on the work.  Now, I know that a lot of you are probably thinking, "Who cares?"  Well, as I said, this blog is a method by which I hope to learn more about a time period in which I have a great interest.  And the way I learn to think about different types of art (especially film) is to review them.  So, as I said, most of you won't agree with me, or won't care.  If you don't care, skip it.  If you don't agree, just remember one thing: It's my opinion.  Mine.  Not yours.  You don't have to agree with me.  It's just what I think about the piece.

     So that, in a nutshell, will be my blog about the history of art in the 60s and 70s.  I think it should be fun, don't you?  Yeah, of course you do :)  And now, to kick off this blog and put us right in the 60s, I present to you, one of my favorite monologues about the time period, from my favorite film of all time,  "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas."