Blog #8: What is Art?

As in most art classes the latter section is devoted towards art produced during the last section of the 20th century. At this point in time my soul rebels towards the images I am exposed to as I have a very difficult time to relate to many (but not all) of these pieces. I understand that the artists themselves are reaching towards new forms of expression including their own psyche, their culture, and issues in their societies at the same times as "revolutionary'' techniques and modes of expression are attempted. In my personal opinion these artists often fail. Of course, this can easily be linked to my own lack of understanding of the messages. At the same time I can relate more easily with prehistoric images in deep recesses of caves in France, to Greek vase paintings, to Gothic sculptures within enormous cathedrals, to Boticelli's strange (but symbolically mesmerizing) assemblages of pregnant women and mythic figures in woodland settings even though immense barriers of time and culture separate me from them. I wonder why? In this class I have felt the same awe and interest as we have encountered Toltec heads, the picturesque paintings and lately reaching the realistic and psychological depths of Rivera, Kahlo and their contemporaries. Now, reaching into modern expression I face issues with recognizing these pieces as art. The overall question is perhaps what art really is, which would bring me into a deep pool of everlasting reflections and commentaries.

In chapter 13 I encountered the best of Latin American artist (or is this simply the personal views of Ades?). Francisco Toledo is praised by Ades as an artist that "takes as his subject the fauna of Mexico, and of America as a whole, and brings together the contrasting modes of natural history and myth." "Among his most elaborate works is the extraordinarily elaborate set of prints in which he treats 'history' as a lizard" [Ades 13.16-19]. I view these pieces as grade school expressions of history and nature and find no redeeming qualities whatsoever in them. I ponder why Toledo has reached such fame and why he is included in this text? As an another example I wish to put forward Santiago Cardenas Arroyo's Blackboard with Frame from 1983 (oil on linen) [Ades 13.27]. The image shows a black canvas with whispers of cloud like entities and streaks of light against the black background. What is this? Or Oswaldo Viteri's Eye of the Light [Ades 13.26]? Is this a Latin American version of Finding Waldo?

I will stop now, but I have difficulties in finding redeeming qualities in the expressions of these artists. I find that their techniques are lacking, they are reaching towards non-conformity and are not conveying anything of interest except to themselves. Even the latter is hard to understand as the image means nothing to me except for wondering why this artist is renowned?
With such a reflection I return to where I started with the complexity of the question of what art really is? An expression of an artist? As simple as that? Why not? Does it really have to relate to the viewer or the culture as a whole? Perhaps that is why I am having a hard time with these pieces? A disconnection of some kind? The piece below, made by a chimpanzee, has as many redeeming qualities in artistic expression as the pieces I mentioned above (at least in my opinion and except for the Greek vase painting). Do you like it? Is it expressive? What does it mean? Can we as viewers find a stronger connection to the human artists as the one made by a chimpanzee? If so, why? After all, we are all primates.

Did you know that the chimpanzee artist refuses to add anything to the picture after a certain point! It is quite interesting how she is so determined to consider her piece complete. I wonder what her image is about....? I ask the same question about the other pieces as well.....

Blog #7: Expressing the Depth of One's Life

As we approach the art of Frida Kahlo (after the turmoil of the murals movement) I feel as if we have entered very different waters, calm and immensely deep. The images in the voice thread and the numerous other pieces of her made me reflect on the connections between reality, i.e. the life we live, and how it can be expressed through art. It almost seems as if Kahlo is putting forward a force linked to deep self-analysis in terms of psychotherapy. Her images seem so full of inner forces, currents and experiences, which powerfully reach outward through the surfaces of her paintings. Still, I suspect that her works had more meaning to herself compared to our impressions as viewers. Did she paint for herself? As a necessary force to to live and survive as a creative artist? She seems to be removed from the influencing force of commissions and commercialism which are often necessary aspects of being an artist. Was she truly so financially independent?

I fully admit not knowing enough about her life beyond her accident as a teenager and her stormy marriage with Rivera. Her paintings speak for themselves in the monumental attribute to her rich inner life and experiences. Every time I see one of her paintings my thoughts go towards what she must have experienced that would lead to such deep psychological self-expression in her art. From a broader point of view I wish to take this aspect with me as I study art, i.e. to never forget about the life and reality of the artist and the deep currents that move within us as human beings. After all, we can just attempt to understand the personal layers that artists embed within their art.

Frida Kahlo's life definitely calls for a further examination. It would be fascinating to have a class that focuses on perhaps, let's say six artists, in depth, reading biographies and examining their art in juxtaposition to the trajectory of their lives, don't you think? The photos we have available from Kahlo's life make me reflect about her unique reality and her mesmerizing art. Kahlo is truly an enigma.