 |
| Rene Magritte, The Importance of Marvels, 1927 |
 |
| Rene Magritte, The Treachery of Images, 1929 |
René Magritte
PREPARING TO WRITE
1. I can see at least 7 separate parts in the image. 1) background/beach setting 2) face of figure 3) left arm of figure 4) right arm of figure 5) nude torso with breasts 6) lower torso with belly-button and 7) legs, largest part of body
2. While many of the shapes are similar—they all make use of circular regions and imply that something has been omitted from the form—they are of contradicting sizes, and thus complicate each other. I perceive the background as a scene which lacks specific detail, although one can see that it depicts a beach. It is a mixture of dark tones, no depth and no real sense of space. I feel that the background conveys the idea that the figure is lost or afloat at sea, in the middle of a vast space with no sense of direction.
3. The colors are very muted. There is not pure black nor any pure white. Yet they seem to all be shades of black and white, with different tonal variations. There is also a faint hint of yellow. These colors suggest despair and unease. The murkiness creates an shadowy, confusing emotion in one’s mind.
4. I believe that the human body can be considered one of the “marvels.” Or perhaps the power of nature—the ocean.
5. I see 3 parts in the image. 1) the pipe 2) the solid background 3) the French text. Yes, I did.
I think the “images” in the title refers to the form of the pipe as well as the text. Also, maybe another “image” is what the viewer gets in his/her mind when the text is read.
MOVING TOWARD ESSAY
1. By combining “sculptural” and “real” parts in this painting, it evokes the sense of deformity and disunity. It confuses the mind and presents a conflict of visual connection as well as a conflict of interpretation. It illustrates a combination of animate and inanimate aspects of life.
2. I like to see the evolution going in the direction toward human, away from being mechanically reproduced. I think this is more appropriate because, at the heart of nature, every living organism is formed in basically the same way. Something is pollinated or fertilized, which yields an organism, which then grows and evolves into whatever it is destined to be. It appeals to me to think of humans as all originating in the same, mechanical way, and then evolving into individual people.
3. The woman seems to be controlling the sea, while at the same time she doesn’t appear to have any strong relationship with it. She is on the sand, not being tompled by strong waves which reside in the background. And she does not look at the water, but at the viewer instead. Her arms are out in a gesturing manner as if to say “look at what I’ve done/what I’ve come from. Look at me!” It is a mere backdrop for her life. It (nature) is what she has come from. I think she serves as an example as a marvel—both in the sense of the female intrigue and the human being as a whole.
4. The woman’s hair, while not very noticeable, seems to be blowing in some invisible breeze. It suggests movement. The fact that it is down and not tied up evokes a sense of freedom and lack of inhibitions.
5. I think that Magritte is trying to comment on the powerfulness of the female. I also think he gives a warning to stay true to one’s natural, real self, and to avoid the urge to become formed like everyone else.
6. I think the effect of the French phrase is supposed to challenge the viewer. It is meant to make the viewer really consider what it is that he/she is looking at. I also think Magritte wants people to take this approach in their everyday lives—to pay close attention to what you see and not assume everything people tell you. Perhaps if it not a pipe, it can be anything you deem it. The term “pipe” need not apply to it if you do not want it to. Perhaps it is simply a black and brown object shaped like a pipe.
7. I think the artist is trying to focus on more than just the physical qualities. He is far more concerned with the “lesson” or “message” of the piece. Without those words, the image would not be able to elicit the idea of human reasoning and challenging perceptions.
WRITING THOUGHTFULLY
1. I think there are definitely some similaraites between Botticelli’s piece and Magritte’s image. They both confront the viewer with the female nude set in a powerful stance. They both also employ the use of the sea, and depict the figures’ hair blowing in the same direction. I believe in some way they are also both commenting on the idea of birth in relation to these circular shapes. Perhaps they are commenting on the continuous life cycle and relating it to the persistent pushing and pulling of the tides. The myth of Venus might help viewers summon an idea of divine birth as opposed to mechanical, routine birth.
2. I do not feel that same way about Picasso’s cubist painting as I do about Magritte’s image. While Magritte’s is obviously not naturalistic or cohesive, it is easy to follow in a uniform manner. The eye can easily gaze up and down the painting without becoming lost in shapes and colors, which happens with Picasso’s piece. Yet Magritte’s surreal perspective does suggest a sense of complexity and disunity, similar to the cubist piece. I think his piece also comments on the state of women in society—he is making a statement on how, as women grow into their own person and personality, they become less like the woman next to them. He comments on the ability of the female to overcome a homogenous birth and to achieve individuality.
3. Based on Magritte’s The Treachery of Images, as well as her comments provided, I would infer that the image is meant to challenge the audience. Magritte wants viewers to think of the “pipe” in unconventional terms. He wants the term “pipe” to be disregarded and instead think of what the word “pipe” conveys. In my opinion, he is presenting a challenging philosophical idea—a problem of association of words and images.
4. My analysis of these paintings, as well as that of Picasso’s, has uncovered the very close relationship between two areas of study—art critic and philosophy. I think the two or often more intertwined than assumed. Artists often include deeper meanings or messages in their pieces, while philosophers often turn to art as an example or expression of what they are trying to understand. This link makes analysis more difficult, but it can also yield to a greater sense of understanding and knowledge. The two play off of each other, both propelling the other and creating much deeper layers to discover.
Rhetorical patterns used—reasoning, visual analysis, subjective experience and personal inference.
CREATING OCCASIONS
 |
| Marcel Duchamp, Fountain, 1917. |
Fountain, by Duchamp, has always stuck out to me. It is rather straightforward image in terms of composition. The black and white photograph shows a urinal with the name “R. Mutt” written on the side. The background is colorless and solid, for the object seems to just be placed in order to be photographed. It has been taken out of its “natural”, normal location. The symbolism and meaning that Duchamp embedded in this piece is much tougher to discern. The oddity and vulgar-nature is what makes me gravitate toward the image. It creates questions in my mind and makes me want to stare at the image to find the answers. If I’ve learned anything, it would be the idea that anything can be art. But art that is similar to this requires more conceptual aspects in order for the work to be effective. It is successful because it challenges the viewer—it makes him/her uncomfortable and evokes emotions that urinals don’t usually evoke.
No comments:
Post a Comment