Showing posts with label analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label analysis. Show all posts

Sculpting words about sculpture

Taking three words from Jon's Wordle about the course: sculpture, questions, analysis...how do you talk about the formal properties of sculpture and then use this as a platform to interpret possible meanings that an artist may have intended?

Have a go at describing this cube...then look at my two attempts:


1) A Cube has six planes of equal dimensions.

Each plane has the same height and width, which meet at right angles forming orthogonals with the adjacent planes. This realises a straight edge.
Each plane has four corners, each of which is a right angle.
The planes are perceived as of a flat texture and surface.
When a strong light is cast upon a cube, the perpendicular planes to the light source are covered in a shadow, which reveals the three dimensionality and volume of the cube.
It is difficult to ever see more than three planes to a cube from one angle.
Most cubes are arranged parallel to a surface.

2) A cube conveys an impression of stability and order.

Its structure represents conformity and regularity, as well as dependency, determination and control. Whilst each surface may be undecorated, the edges are contours of possibility rather than absence as any mark made on the plane is made to seem more dynamic by its relationship to the predictability of the frame lines. It can be perceived as: a geometric paradigm of perfection: a fascist declaration of intolerance of deviation; spiritual in its quiet, meditative, rhythmic contemplation individuality and universality.

Can you deduce criteria for analysis of three dimensional objects, based on these descriptions? More to come later...next I'll look at somebody who took blocks from the building site and arranged them into art.

V

Westminster Abbey and Westminster Cathedral

Westminster Abbey interior

Westminster Cathedral interior

These two buildings, within 5 minutes walk from one another in the centre of London, represent two very different responses to the idea of a large religious structure. I'd like you to visit them and use your experience of both buildings as the starting point for some research about the relationships between form and function in architecture.

I think it's important that your ideas are grounded in a physical and emotional response to specific buildings, since architecture is a kind of theatre that engages more than just the visual sense. I'm also interested to see where your research leads you and how much of the information I posted about papers 1 and 2 of the course you are able to incorporate. Ultimately, I would like you to compare and contrast these two buildings (not just these two pictures of the buildings) in terms of:
  • their formal elements (shape, space, composition, mass, volume, colour, light etc.)
  • the historical/social/cultural contexts in which they were made
  • the materials used in their construction
  • the relationship between aesthetic appearance and functions
  • notions of style
I'm happy to receive this as a comment here or attached to an email.

Samson and Delilah

Peter Paul Rubens - Samson and Delilah, 1609 (The National Gallery)

Anthony van Dyck - Samson and Delilah, 1619-20 (Dulwich Picture Gallery)

It is often a useful exercise to compare and contrast treatments of the same subject by different artists in an effort to hone your skills of visual analysis. We have now collected three different versions of the Biblical story of Samson and Delilah but, for the purposes of this exercise, let's consider these two versions above. It seems clear that van Dyck would have been aware of Rubens' picture since he was employed in the master's studio in his early career. There are clearly similarities in the treatment of Samson's betrayal by Delilah, but also some interesting differences.

Why do you think these artists were so captivated by this particular Bible story?

What similarities can you see in these depictions of the story?
What about the differences? How have both artists approached the treatment of light? How would you describe each artists' handling of paint?

In what sense do both of these paintings belong to the style called Baroque?

Here are a couple of other versions of the Samson and Delilah story, one by van Dyck later in his career and another by Rembrandt.

Anthony van Dyck - Samson and Delilah, 1630 (Kunsthistorisches Museum)

Rembrandt van Rijn - Samson and Delilah, 1630 (The Rijksmuseum)