My Kid Could Paint That

Bad Boys
The Men Who Saw Art and Chose To Change It
Curatedby Gabrielle Fenaroli

Jackson Pollock, One: Number 31, 1950

The 1950s were a confusing time for America and its people. Jackson Pollock wanted to add to the confusion and angst by challenging the Western ideas of art and painting. Could you call something a painting if it had no particular subject? No particular purpose?

Could you call it art if you believed your kid could paint it? Well,  Jackson Pollock believed you could, and that’s what he intended to show the world. He produced his work by spreading a canvas onto the floor and proceeded to fling a mixture of different alkyd enamels in an unearthly fashion. He was not bound to a single angle of painting and he worked his way around the piece and discovered a new dimension of painting. He believed for an artist to be confined to just a paintbrush was blasphemy as he intended to use his whole body to create works of art. In doing so, he turned the art world upside down.

One of my favorite Pollocks resides in the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. I remember seeing One: Number 31, 1950 when I was younger. My mother was and is a Pollock admirer and I never truly understood it till I began taking art history. It is somewhat appropriate that this is my last blog entry because Pollock is one of the first artists I recall seeing; and mostly because he is the first artist I recall hating. He became synonymous with art museums, which became the antithesis of fun and the ruiner of numerous play dates. While sitting staring at the oversized canvas, I felt a rush of anxiety and angst that I had never felt before. The walls of the MOMA closed in and people began to vanish as the canvas enveloped me in its aggressive and invasive hands. I felt each thread of paint woven around me and the pools of liquid began to surround me. Then an overwhelming sense of peace washed over me because the tension subsided and the landscape became clear.

While Pollock’s piece was confusing it also found a way to balance itself in a calligraphic fashion. The loops and pools of color found ways to intertwine and connect throughout the piece and bring life to every inch of the painting. Pollock did not limit his painting to one spot, just as I did not limit my mind to one way of viewing art. There were different angles and meaning to be seen and that what it was all about.

As a contributor, I now bid this site farewell, and I feel so blessed to have gotten the opportunity to see art differently. Each post I read from my fellow classmates is the opportunity to see another angle of a canvas, to feel something new for a certain work. I get the rare opportunity to walk in their footsteps as they encounter a canvas and write their thoughts. So, I thank you for reading.

Bad Boys
The Men Who Saw Art and Chose To Change It
Curatedby Gabrielle Fenaroli

Manet, Le Dejeuner Sur l'Herbe, 1863\

 
Waltzing through the Musée d'Orsay as an ignorant child unaware of the art that surrounded me, my eyes fell upon a rather peculiar painting Le Déjeuner sur l'Herbe. As I began to study the painting, I felt my mother’s cold, sweaty palms cover my eyes as she quickly ushered me away from the painting. Little girls don’t need to be staring at naughty lunches, she said in a hushed tone. It was then I realized what was transpiring in the scene, it was indeed as my mother pointed out:  a naked lady eating lunch. It was just as shocking to me as it was to the French public in 1863 when it was presented in the Salon des Refuses. Édouard Manet painted the large (7 by 8 ½ feet) canvas and blatantly ignored social norms at the time. However unnerving it was to the viewers, Manet’s work sets the tone for modern art as it defies previous subjects and paves the way for new artistic freedoms.

What strikes me about the painting is the casualness of the whole scene; at no point does it strike me as a “naughty lunch.” There are no neon signs or glaring declarations that there are indeed two naked women in this scene. The two men sit around leisurely discussing politics or the gorgeous scenery that surrounds them. The woman in the background appears too large and slightly out of proportion when compared to her three companions. The combination of the crudely painted background and her large body give her the appearance that she is merely floating off in the distance. Even if the background and some of the foreground are inconsistent with lighting and shading, one cannot discount the painting for it made way for a new art form to emerge.

Although before we going giving Manet all the created he would like to believe he deserves, he does draw upon past paintings to aid in breaking the art barrier. The similarities between Le déjeuner sur l'herbe and Titian’s Pastoral Concert, painted in 1509, are undeniable. However where Manet veers off is where he gets his claim to fame. The woman at Manet's picnic stares directly at the viewer, which at the time was taboo. Manet makes his leading lady’s stare down his go to move as seen in his other risqué 1863 painting Olympia. So while I understand my mother’s intentions on attempting to shield me from the human form at the young age of four, I have grown to truly love this painting. Manet’s ability to create a scene so nonchalant but also gripping amazes me, and he does indeed make a way for future artists to continue to make mothers shield their child's eyes.

Bad Boys
The Men Who Saw Art and Chose To Change It

Bad Boys
The Men Who Saw Art and Chose To Change It
Curated by Gabrielle Fenaroli

Pieter Bruegel, The Bearing of the Cross, 1564

Usually when I’ve encountered painting involving Jesus it has never been a round of Where’s Waldo trying to find him. However, Pieter Bruegel the Elder likes to make his viewer work for the prize in his 1564 piece The Bearing of the Cross. Our eyes scan the image as we gaze over each part as not to linger on one place too long. So many different scenes transpire before our eyes, and if we are not careful, it becomes easy to lose ourselves with the endless possibilities. We could be drawn to the right hand corner to four figures that appear still and larger than the rest. The draping of the oversize blue veil makes it clear the woman is the Holy Virgin Mary. She appears with a sickly complexion and in a position of utter defeat and loss. Many scenes depict Mary weeping with her companions, but this is not a depiction of the Deposition of Pieta. Christ is nowhere near them, and their sorrow intensifies with the sense of isolation and separation. So where is Christ?

Maybe you eventually see him because of white stag standing almost dead center of the painting. If not you eventually come to realize that the tiny outline of Christ covered in blue, is crushed beneath the weight of the cross. He staggers to find his footing after he has fallen. It seems odd that Bruegel has chosen to paint Chris so small, and it almost makes viewers ashamed that they did not recognize him earlier. Instead of giving us the image right away, Bruegel allows the viewer some freedom in tracing the journey and creating the narrative. The viewer can continue to search around the painting but cannot forget what they’ve seen in the middle.

What makes the canvas a landmark is the ability Bruegel gives to the viewer to make mistakes. He refuses to give the public an image they will automatically know and recognize. In creating a piece with so much chaos and action he allows for moments of reflection and thought. He does manage to make a point in portraying the Spanish army as those dressed in scarlet that are clearly oppressing Christ. At the time there was a great repression of Protestants and terror was widespread throughout the Netherlands. Bruegel does a phenomenal job of mixing the past with the present and once again creating a bridge for the public to connect with divine.