Diego Velazquez- Las Meninas

 

Las Meninas is my favorite painting of all time...well at least so far. This piece was a heavy influence on my falling in love with art. I know its my favorite painting because of the way I feel every single time I look at it. I will never forget the first time I saw this piece at the Prado Museum in Madrid, Spain. I remember the chills going down my spine and the time I spent just thinking about and dissecting the many possibilities in this painting. After a very long day at the Prado museum I really felt that I wanted to really concentrate on Spanish artist.

 

This painting is amazing and photos, replicas, or internet images do it absolutely no justice. This is a breathtaking large and lively piece of work measuring 125.2 in × 108.7 in, or in other words a massive 10 ft x 9ft. Velazquez painted this in 1656 and is still one of the most analyzed paintings of all time. I am able to study this painting for hours and wonder what Velazquez was actually meaning to demonstrate, or was it meant to be translated however we wanted?

 

This is a portrait of the "Maids of Honour" (which is the English translation of "Las Meninas"), Spanish royalty  young Margaret Theresa and her court. It looks like this painting was done while in action as life happens right before our eyes. Is Velazquez the man that seems to be painting Margaret Theresa and her court? is this a scene within another scene? who is the couple all the way to the back which also seem to be in a frame, or is this a mirror reflection? What's with the eerie man in the background looking in? So many questions and so many possible answers that can be left to our own imagination. Many people believe that it is Velazquez painting the couple towards the back that show in the reflection and that the maids are just there playing out their day as usual, however others believe that Velazquez is actually painting the royal court. There is an account of exactly who every single person in this painting is supposed to be, an actual historical person. I love the realism, the sense of wonder and awe and I love the fact that there is no wrong answer to any of these questions.

 

 

 

Color & Chaos- Jessica Stockholder

A world of color and chaos is how I would describe stockholders work. I love her use of color, it feels as she put it "uncontrolled". Like many artist she likes to work alone, in peace...although her installations arent peaceful at all. Perhaps there is already too much noise in her own head. Stockholders use of intuition plays a big role in the completion of her piece. When one doesn't know how a piece is going to look when finished, one must rely mostly on their intuition to ensure the outcome desired.

 

Stockholder's installtion piece at Mitchell-Innes and Nash in 2006 was absolutely beautiful. Her use of everyday mundane items such a ls a typewriter, canvas folding chair, a wooden piece of furniture, shower curtains and light bulbs make for an ironically very un-mundane piece. I think that is what I most like about Stockholder. She has the ability to make ordinary every day items look extraordinary.

 

 

My thoughts on Chris Burden vs. Mark Pauline

Highly controversial, both Chris Burden and Mark Pauline are timeless, because controversy of course leads to timelessness. Take Chris Burden’s “Transfixed” as a prime example. Someone will always and forever have a problem with a man being crucified for the public’s viewing pleasure, whether it be now or even a hundred years from now.  I agree with WTF Art History’s suggestion that perhaps Transfixed could have just been a cry for attention, none the less Chris Burden leaves a permanent image in many viewers minds, leading him to be a name they will never forget.

It seems Mark Pauline has many things in common with Burden. Crying out for attention and to be a known name that people won’t soon forget seems to be what he does best. A very controversial piece is titled “Area Nightclub Show 1985/ Survival Research Laboratories” is an example of this cry. A fire spitting metal spider, a poster of the 1961 assassination of a Japanese socialist leader, and cow’s blood?? What does all this have in common except being in shock and acquiring attention. Pauline told People magazine back in May of 1985, that this piece was “his reaction to all this other art around us” and that “we see ourselves as professional pains in the asses”. Both Burden and Pauline want to brainwash us all!

Although both artist have similar means of getting attention…by shocking their audience so that they can never forget who they are, I am sure very opposing reasons are their driving forces. It also looks like some of Burden’s later work has livened up so to speak. Perhaps he is in a very different era or stage in his life right now. Metropolis II epitomizes life moving ever so quickly, time never stopping…another use of timelessness. Another piece entitled “Big Wheel” goes into innovation, and technology. Burden must be coming into the light of a new era, an era of progress, while Mark Pauline might just want to always be remembered for his shocking ways.

What ART is to me

A few years ago I would argue that I was never exposed to art while growing up. I now realize that art surrounded me at almost all times. I had a pre conceived notion of what art was or "supposed" to be. If it wasn't a painting hanging on the wall of a lavish museum then it was not to be considered "Art". As I have evolved, so has my definition of what Art is and what it means to me.

Art is beauty, pain, joy, and regret. Art can be every emotion that I can feel or want to feel. Art is a means of communicating thoughts and emotions. Art is life that is all around me and what is great about it is that I can choose to translate it any which way I choose. Art is also judgment, because nothing that is shown to anyone but ourselves comes without judgment.