For the purpose of this writing the paintings will be named "A" and "B" respectively from left to right.
Fundamental responses from the contrasting forms of presentations, forced a conversation to develop. Not just from the viewers, but from the pieces of art themselves.
Looking at the images in a basic aesthetic sense, work A has the appearance of an ethereal dream deriving from an android. The pixel-esque nature of this piece also brought thoughts of technology and digitalisation of images. Be they conscious or not.
Work B, holds a sense of nature, due to the use of wood as the applied medium and the softer dispersion of the face (when compared to work B). However all of the above points, could in some respect be thought of as arbitrary 'over-reading', an ability that becomes increasingly hard to escape.Thus causing viewers to possibly miss the intended language which was intended to be read.
Soon the pieces of art, were then deconstructed with instantaneous impressions, where questions such as 'what is actually infront of us?' were asked. Conclusions soon arose that the paintings were portraits that have been produced via studying photos. As well as the argument between presentation, the concept of style of painting appeared.
Why is that red square so compelling to the viewer?
Abstract or figurative?
Why are portraits created?
These questions were soon studied, and resulted in a perfect retrospective of institution taught theories and concepts. This coupled with the previous comparison of presentation; the ideas of wood being the initial foundation for which paintings were to be applied with the use of poplar (pre-renaissance), then canvas trumping it's previous medium and the backwards thought of 'good quality painting should be on a canvas'.
Resulting in the conclusion of the critique. A discussion/argument/study of 'art schools'?
No comments:
Post a Comment