Blog # 3: Ch. 4: Realism and Perspective

Realism is basically the opposite of abstract. Realism is supposed to depict something as it "would be seen by the eye." The artist is trying to put 3D images on a medium which is only 2 dimensional. That is unless it is sculpture such as the life size clay soldiers from China's Chin dynasty. They were "substitutes for real, live soldiers." One thing that I didn't know is that realism is "a style of art that is understood at a given historical moment to accurately represent nature or the real or to convey and interpret accurate or universal meanings about people." You wouldn't think that realism would change over time. I thought people would just draw what they see. Kind of like a picture. This is known as linear perspective, but there are other styles or realism. Different styles of realism show how the culture of a particular time viewed the world, gave value, and distinguished truth.
Alberti used linear perspective mathematical and optical rules that he said came from nature. By doing this artists were able to create depth in a painting. Such as the landscape in The Cestello Annunciation by Sandro Botticelli. "Perspective forms have tried to remain objective instead of subjective." The problem is that human vision is very complex, "our eyes are constantly in motion," so we are taking many pictures and putting them together all the time.
A modern form of perspective is seen in video games. "Video games rely on point-of-view shots to situate the player" as though he is moving in 3D. Video games are virtual images that are both digital and analog. Video games contine to look more 3 dimensional and it's hard to imagine what they will look like 10 years from now. I remember 15 years ago they didn't look nearly as real as they do now. We've gone from super mario bros to real life sports games. I'm sure that they are using more advanced geometry along with better technology.

Blog # 2: Artist Quote

I completely agree with Scott Adams: "Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep." I think the first premise that he is using is that not everything is art, or not everything is good art, or not all art is good enough to be called art. However you want to say it. If we want to have any real definition of art at all then we must agree that some things are going to be excluded. I think that his second premise is that art must be creative. It cannot be a reproduction or an imitation, it has to be unique and special. So while the artist has to start by trying to make pieces that are creative, he then has to narrow it down to what is good. We have to ask whether or not it has skill created into it, whether or not it evokes deep mental thinking, whether or not it interpolates us, if it's timeless, and any other criteria that one would use to define art. It's only when you mix creativity with skill and foresight that you can really call something art. If you're just going to call anything that has creativity or evokes emotion art, then you might as well not even discuss art because everything has creativity, so it's just a waste of time.
Knowing when to eliminate things that don't quite meet the cut is a part of writing as well. First you write a rough draft and then you go back and edit it. You have to know what sentences and what thoughts or arguments are unhelpful for your paper. The major difference between writing a paper and making a piece of art would be that when you are making a piece of art you do not have the luxury of going back and editing it. You usually have to learn from your mistake and start all over again. If you make a bad stroke on a canvas and ruin your painting you can't just say that you were being creative, you have to admit that you messed up and start with a new canvas. That is why art takes a lot of skill. One bad mistake could ruin the whole piece.

Ch. 3 Power of the Gaze

I think the first thing that establishes power within a relationship of an objected being viewed and the viewer is whether or not the object knows that it is being viewed. Take a naked woman for example: if she doesn't know that she is being watched then the viewer has all the power; but if she understands that she is being watched, whether or not the viewer knows that she knows she is being watched, then she has a great ability to influence the viewer, and this would give her much of the power. Next you have to distinguish between whether or not the object is animate or inanimate. Most inanimate objects that are created are created to be seen by someone. The creator is trying to convey some type of message within the context of its culture and time period. I think that this gives the object much of the power within the relationship. It gives people an idea of what they're supposed to feel when they see it. The object is supposed to interpellate them. Then when the viewer gazes upon the object they can determine who they are within the context of the object. The viewer can either put themselves within the context or they can ignore the image. But they really can't give any feedback to the object itself, so the viewer's power is limited. There are some objects that are not supposed to be seen, just like there are some people who do not know they are being watched. In this case the viewer has much of the power. They are seeing something that is personal that was not intended to be exposed. They now have information that they weren't meant to have, and this gives them power. Some people like the idea of seeing things that they weren't meant to see. This is called Voyeurism.

Any time we see something there is much power in gazing, or looking long and hard at something, with an intent to understand it. Many times all we do is glance at objects or scenes. We lose out on understanding a lot of the creative design that the object holds.

Vouyer

I deffinitetly felt like a voyeur while I was watching that movie. While I was watching, I kept thinking that they better stay away from the window or else the bad guy would see them. You want to watch him without him knowing that he is being watched. It almost feels a little wrong because you're looking into someone's private life.

Woman at the Well (John ch. 4)

I really like Christian Art that accurately portrays Bible scenes and helps me to imagine it as if l were witnessing it taking place. I feel like this painting is somewhat accurate, but it fails to capture many important aspects of the situation. I think that the painting correctly portrays the personal attention and intimacy that Jesus gave to the woman. But the environment is inaccurate. It is almost Eden-like. The surroundings are too clean. The rocks that Jesus is sitting and putting his foot on are too well defined. Their white garments and feet are clean even though they are in a dusty desert. Everything seems too perfect. The picture also doesn't portray any of Jesus' human experiences. In the story Jesus was tired and thirsty after a long walk, and he needed water and rest; but in the painting he looks as if he is well hydrated and refreshed. The light shining on him helps to capture a sense of his divinity, but the painting never captures a sense of his humanity. The almost Eden-like environment and beautiful condition of both him and the woman fail to grasp the struggles that Jesus had to go through. In reality Jesus was probably dirty from the dusty road, thirsty and in need of water, and very hungry because he was fasting. I give this painting a D because it at least captures the personal love that Jesus had for this random woman that he just happened to meet at the well. However, one of the spectacular things about the story of “the Woman at the Well” is that Jesus cared more about her than he did himself. He was in need of food, water, and rest, but his love for souls pushed him to forget about his self-interest. His environment was harsh, and the son of God experienced the frailties of living in human flesh; yet our great commander pushed on, he accomplished his mission by overcoming sin and selfishness, and by preaching good tidings to the poor and needy.