Expressionist art tried to convey emotion and meaning rather than reality. In order to express emotion, the subjects are often distorted or exaggerated.
Expressionism, artistic style in which the artist seeks to depict not objective reality but rather the subjective emotions and responses that objects and events arouse within a person. In Expressionism: Rhythms are generally subtle and irregular those which demonstrate great variety and do not occur in regular repeated patterns. Please note: no matter how irregular rhythms become, they are always notated to show where the main beats are located. This frequently requires many ties.
It is not impossible; it just has not been done. If it is done it will not be Cubist sculpture. Conversely, Cubist sculpture is unhappy in small scale—not impossible, just more problematic.
If the sculpture is reduced in size then the elements are reduced in size, and they become intimate, pieces we can pick up and juggle. Sculpture made of these parts fails to come across with authority, because we associate them with things in our environment which are either precious or dispensable, and these associations operate against a relationship between the parts in terms of the features of the parts. They lack the size and weight necessary for straightforward visual engagement.
If the elements of the small sculpture stay large, then there must be fewer of them, and the piece has less relational potential.
Good small Cubist sculptures can be made, and I do not say that they cannot. But to do so the sculptor must take on certain disadvantages he does not need and should not want. We are much more particular about the properties of sculpture than we are about painting, because painting has an artificial feel, we know it is a picture, and pictures are used for representation, they are not real , whereas sculpture stands right in the three dimensional environment amidst all the things we must think about and act on all the time.
The assumptions people make about three dimensional objects must be considered a condition of art-making.
There is no reason to fight this fact, any more than there is reason to introduce extra-art elements, or other art-limiting factors.
This is a factor of total size and element size, of course. If the elements are too few, then that aspect of the sculpture which carries the quality will be cramped; if the elements are too many that same relational force will dissipate into the profusion of parts and pieces.
This moderation of the number of elements cannot be proven necessary , but it is evident that these overall choices made it easier for Smith to get as much as he did out of the Cubist style he used. Smith kept complications down; if something is there in one of his works, it is usually there for a purpose other than grace or embellishment. Cubist sculpture asks to be monochromatic.
The reasons for this are subtle, and stem from our attitudes toward color. The original Cubists eliminated color, or more accurately, used a reduced and severely greyed range of hue variation, on the way to a spatial method of picture-making.
One way or another, color was only a minor tool for Cubism, a lackey at the feet of spatiality. So it is not surprising that Smith would avoid color, especially since he recognized the sculptural power of the Cubist style as it was, simple and naked. He knew that the pure Cubist method was good enough for sculpture and that simplification, not elaboration, was needed.
But a better reason why Smith did not often use color, and indeed, why color is usually so unfortunate on sculpture, is that we do not have any real experience with color and no procedure for the application of varied color to the things we make.
In nature, the few things that are highly colored stand out as spots against a neutral background, and when you look closely at them you see not one color but hundreds. If you look at a red flower closely, in the sunlight, you will see small variations of this red: orange red, purple-red, a streak of black, a spot of yellow and white, dark red where the shadow falls, light red where the light hits, and so forth.
Nature is quite a color blender. But human beings are not. We use simple, bright colors in a flat declarative way, with little subtlety, and the materials we have at hand emphasize and extend this. When we color the things we make, like a car, a fire hydrant or a book cover, we usually use one or two colors, unless it is a picture often of a natural subject which already has, or at least has the visual complexity to bear, subtle color difference.
But things we color simple. Manufactured objects, as compared with natural objects, tend to be simple, like Cubist sculpture compared to the human body. It is not within our experience to create complicated color designs for manufactured objects, and indeed, there is no reason to do so. Cubist sculpture is frankly man-made and non-natural; the parts of a Cubist sculpture have no reason to bear color, and when color is applied it usually looks artificial, like a wrapper—it has no organic relationship with the shape of the thing it is on, like natural things do; it looks arbitrary and out of place, and like other extra-art elements, it seems foreign , meshing with spatial things awkwardly and with great difficulty.
Also, color is a fragile component of surface, too delicate to work with the rough spatiality of Cubist sculpture. Successful colored sculpture must use material which looks to us as if it should be colored the way it is. Also, he uses painted sheet steel in a painterly way, by crushing and bending it, which gives the material a soft but jagged look, with a scratched, roughed up surface, just like an Abstract Expressionist painting. This gives the colored parts the same kind of acceptable complexity natural objects have.
Anyway, Smith usually stayed away from color. Surface is a sticky problem. Color can be avoided, but surface cannot. Smith used welded metal. This is not so bad. Instead of leaving the metal alone he burnished it to a high polish and left the path of the burnishing tool on the surface. As such, the burnished path is so completely out of whack with the whole character of the piece, but is such a dumb and obvious part of the steel surface, that the surface it interrupts thwarts your involvement with it.
Most Cubist sculpture is weak because it follows Cubist painting. These sculptors avoid taking sculptural advantage of the Cubist method, which is a shame, because Cubism is a sculptural style. The spirit of Cubism favors openness—not just apertures, but real openness, as far as the elements will stretch. Cubism developed as a type of abstracting visual attack on particular things.
The subject matter of the first Cubist paintings, usually single items, like a head, or a put together group like a still life, gave the picture a wholeness against which Cubist fragmentation could play. But after the issue was settled, Cubism was left with the pieces into which it had rendered its subjects, and it was up to the artists to make Cubist art by putting together rather than by taking apart.
Since the quality of the Cubist work is carried by the relationship between simple, rather clearly defined units it follows that there will be more complexity per unit if they are physically separated because the amount of surface exposed determines the complexity of relationship possible with any particular number of components. Smith understood this, and opened up all the way.
He even made a few pieces which seem to be nothing more than big holes surrounded by a few awkward lengths of steel—but they work. Smith enjoyed all the advantages that his developed Cubist style got him, but his choice to leave big space between simple elements was probably the most important to his art. It gave him more than increased surface; it gave him an expressive freedom which cooperated with his materials.
By forcing his sculpture open, he could make not only space shapes, that is, shapes in space circumscribed by the elements of his sculpture, but the elements themselves had a greater freedom of movement: they could see-saw, tilt, topple, jut off, and do a hundred other things.
Smith got himself such a position of strength, at least during the last ten years of his life, that his work was really play , of the most energetic and serious sort. The foundation of his work was so sound, so securely chosen and perfected, that he left himself free to do anything, almost without any working out , like an old Chinese calligrapher, wielding his rat-hair brush with an abandon born of fifty years concentration. By way of a postscript, I would say that, in a sense, what I have said about the work of Pollock and Smith is indifferent to its quality.
Other artists, having done the things I have described, would not have made great art. The evidence is always with us in the form of the work of the imitator. I cannot prove that Pollock and Smith made great art. According to my experience their art is of a very high order; by assuming, rather than by demonstrating, this art-quality, I accept the limitation that all art critics, good and bad, must accept: the inability to specify the effect great art has, which precludes the possibility of describing its proper forms.
It seems that criticism must always follow art. But this is the only blind spot that is forced on us. The assumption of quality is subjective, but the description of a work, of its features and the forces which formed it, should be equally objective.
Art critics so often mix up description and experience. Their function should be to set down facts about works of art, not to transmit what they feel, or offer a verbal substitute for art quality. All else is experience and what you get from it.
I have not got on to the art of Pollock and Smith by outlining the foundations of their method. That comes from looking, not reading. There is no good done writing about the mechanics and invention evident in the work of an artist if that writing leads us to mistake these things for the art they support. Having sensed art, it is tempting to ascribe it to some feature of the work which lends itself to talk.
But then the art gets lost. Like all real beauty, art is as slight as it is persistent. Good art will not give up to words; its quality is fugitive and veiled. It will push back as hard as we try to penetrate, yielding only as a source, on its own terms.
I have tried to draw out some of the facts about Cubism and its internal forces, and to record its changing shape as it passed through the work of Pollock and Smith. Although the quality of their work arises from the way it was made, and I can show, to some extent, how it was made, and what Cubism gave to it, I cannot specify that quality.
All I can do, or anyone can do, is describe the path it makes. Elyssa Kigame Francisco. Views Total views. Actions Shares.
No notes for slide. Use of subjective interpretations of the world around them 2. Use of powerful colors and dynamic compositions to help inflict emotion 7. Expressionist Goals: Strongly impose the artist's own sensibility to the worlds representation 9. Einstein Tower in Potsdam Germany Total views On Slideshare 0.
From embeds 0. Number of embeds 2. Downloads Shares 0. The inspiration from Marc Chagall is evident in my painting when dissected and. His painting Family of Acrobats with Monkey is of classical style and was a contribution to expressionism.
Since then, he continued to discover ways to combine classicism with expressionism. Real prosperity. During this period he painted mostly geometric works, inspired by the Cubism he had always admired.
Until he taught at the art school he had attended as a young man. His first solo show was just in Ohio. His paintings were not easy to understand: they were a mixture between Cubism and Expressionism, but then began. Africa's Influence on Western Art During the mid 19th century up until the Great War of , European countries began to heavily colonize and come into contact with African nations.
This was called "new imperialism". During this contact, European culture was influenced by Africa. The influence of the African people can be seen in the European society of the time. In the 19th and 20th centuries, modern artists embraced African art for its lack of pretension or formal qualities. In the.
0コメント