Experimental Film and Abstract Art

I remember watching the experimental films in class and thinking what is the meaning of this film. Right from the beginning I thought the film was strange and could not figure out the storyline of the video. All I could do was focus on the camera angles of the film because I have taken few technique film classes, where I learned about camera angles and such. The Maya Deren’s experimental films were creation of Maya Deren’s visions. I believe that experimental films are exactly like abstract art because there isn’t a set description of what is the storyline; one tends to just figure out and interpret it in our own ways.

Interpretations are key in abstract art and experimental films (in the experimental films I have seen so far). Everyone has their own view on what the piece or the film mean or what the artist is trying to convey. However Sontag says we should not interpret art but I how can we not interpret something? It is part of process; we do it with almost everything we process in our head. In my opinion, experimental films and abstract art is very similar because there is no way of judging it. If you had to grade it, what standard would you compare it to because each experimental film and abstract art is unique?

This blog has shown me there is no set answers on why something is art. Art is art because it is defined as it. Some may say something isn't art such as readymade art or abstract art, but its just an interpretation or an opinion. Everyone has their own and there is no right answer. You cannot always explain art with a simple answer, that is also why it is so great. Just learn to love it.

What its worth?

What makes a photo valuable? Why do people choose to pay millions for an artwork when they can actually have it for cheaper but just getting a replica? Well the reason I have heard multiple times is that originality is what makes it valuable. The fact that artist created that piece not the replicas is what brings worth to that particular piece. It is that he or she touched it. It’s the fact, that others were just photocopies of the original piece. This all brings my attention to Berger’s piece on “Ways of Seeing”, where he talks about the value of an original photography.

Regarding painting it is more reasonable for why collectors pay large sum of money for the original painting, but for a photo it seems reason able to have a copy. Berger explains that the reasons for why collectors choose to pay money for the vintage are because the original has the photographer’s vision. Berger’s states, “This higher price is justified by claiming that the vintage print will better reflect the photographer’s original vision.” Till this day I question, is it really justifiable? Does the vision change cause it’s not original. I believe it doesn’t change, its just more valuable and preferable to have the real ordeal then a copy.

Along with abstract art, many complain and criticize that since abstract art are such broad and unexplainable anyone can create it and call it a masterpiece. Many feel they can put together a piece in five minutes and give it an unrecognizable meaning to that piece and it would be abstract art. Then the question of why the abstract artworks are famous, I still partially believe it’s due to the artist. After an artist has had made a name in the world, their work is more valuable then others. So an artist’s abstract art of red dot would be called just a red dot, if anyone were to create it, but it was a famous painter then its called ABSTRACT ART.  

Ad Reinhardt

The infamous "BLACK SQUARE". The day i saw this paint, i was confused at the fact why it was even put in a museum. All i could see was a large painting that was colored used with black paint. I saw it as a pointless piece of art and didn't know why it was being praised.

In the museum, I went through a whole phase where i was questioning why and what makes this art. I kept saying, i can do this on my own, and i would not be famous for it. However, when I researched this painting, I had a better understanding. Ad Reinhardt uses the technique of different shades of one color. It reminded me of the color wheel and how the addition of a little littler color or a bit darker shade it changes the tone of the color. 

This particular piece, even though it is hard to tell has nine different shades of black. There are nine black squares; each has a different shade. From my analyzation, the background is one shade of black, then there is two different shades of black lines across the painting. It is funny to see that the same shade of color looks different just because its next to another shade. It tricks your eyes and makes you feel like it is a different color. 

One question I still have is...WHY IS THAT WE CANNOT SEE THE DIFFERENT SHADES IN THE MUSUEM? maybe it is the lighting but i still cannot figure out why it is differently on the internet compared to in person. At first i thought it was just my eyes that was not letting me see the different shade. But i did ask strangers in the museum if they see the different shades. 

Jackson Pollock Website by Miltos Manetas

One of the day i was researching Jackson Pollock on google, i found an incredible website. It was the first website that came up when i typed in "Jackson Pollock" and since the website url was www.jacksonpollock.org i thought it was a website with great details of his works. I was surprised to find that this was actually an interactive website. It is a way of educating the public about his techniques. It is also one of the most famous internet art work.

The website allows users to try different techniques used by Pollock. It is as thought we are actually painting on a canvas but just using paint and paint brushes we are using our trackpad on our macs. There are six different canvas on the web page. Each has their own themes and different techniques. the first was just a fun, where i get to experiment different colors and just drag the paint. With each click you get to test out different colors and enjoy just making something. There is no two same pieces of work. It is always different. :)

The second one was more of playing with sizes. You get to choose what colors you want to incorporate and the sizes you want to use. It is style of controlled technique. 

The title of the third canvas is...

Or this slightly psychotic Pollock... at first i didn't understand what was so psychotic about this canvas, until i realized while i was creating art the color was slightly changing. If you do not pay attention you wouldn't recognize it. The line also move on its own and create a different line that you actually intended to make. The color started off with a royal blue, which starts to change to more darker blue, and finally returns to the royal blue. 

Or this Pollock where you can change the color of the drip and the background (hit enter and then hit different keys,)

This was the one that took me time to understand. I didn't understand what was so different about this one and the first one because it had the same type of style, but later i learned with just clicking different types on my keyboard i was able to change the entire color of the my work. 

Last one was my favorite of all. It was the drip technique. I can drag the brush and then keep it there, and it will do the dripping technique Pollock is famous for. It thought it was pretty interesting that i can do an actual dripping technique on a computer. This website is amazing and more people should know about it. :)

If We Strip Away The Prestige And Title Of A Painting.

When judging art what is that we truly look at? My mentality was that the reasons why the arts that are in museums and admired by many are because of who it was attached to. I felt as though what held importance were the prestige and the title that was brought with the painting. If anyone else were to paint the things that are hanging on the walls of abstract section of museums, it wouldn’t be looked at the same way as if it was attached to a painter.

For someone who has never taken the time and has a background education in art, it is simply a mere painting or drawing. Especially when it comes to abstract art. Abstract art is defined as, “Art that does not attempt to represent external, recognizable reality but seeks to achieve its effect using shapes, forms, colors, and textures.” so this brings up the question where does the limitation of abstract art? How are we to declare the differences from Mark Rothko, Jackson Pollock works to a children and monkeys art? 

There has been a study performed by Boston College’s Angelina Hawley-Dolan and Ellen Winner. This included 72 undergraduates, which half were majoring in studio art and the other half were psychology major. There were 30 painting, somewhere painted by a child, a monkey, a chimpanzee, a gorilla, or an elephant, and of course well-known painters.  From these sections the participants were asked if the labeling on the painting were correct or not and to which it belongs to. They were also asked which painting they preferred. 

From the results, I was shocked to find out that it that participants were able to pick out the professional painting and many even preferred their works. I thought the results were that some may pick the professional one, but many would still make the mistake thinking those that were painted by monkeys and children were professional works.

Hawley- Dolan states after her results, “This finding shows that we can see the mind behind the art…We see more than we think we do when we look at abstract art.” She explains while studying the participants, she had learned that after being asked why the participants choose the works they did, they states it was more about the painters intentions. I am still peculiar on if abstract art is it really art because it strictly great art but is it because who made it. For example when people go out of their way to purchase something just because someone else is connected to it. Like the crazy idea, buying an item that is no use to you, but just because P Diddy touched it. (Even though there is no sure thing that he actually had any encounter with the item.) The study did open my eye on how one can tell the difference between professional and amateur art. Art isn’t simply just because it was attached to person or honor. It is about intentions, perception, and emotions connected to it. Everyone perceives things differently. Even though we all may like the same art such as Jackson Pollock’s crazy dripping technique, we all see different things within the work. 

http://dasbloggen.com/
http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/37158/how-psychologists-and-a-team-of-monkeys-babies-and-elephants-proved-that-abstract-art-takes-talent/?utm_source=nlda&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

"I can control the flow of paint: there is no accident"

                                                      Autumn Rhythm (No. 30), 1950, oil on canvas, 267 x 526 cm

Right off the bat, the color chosen stands out great to the viewer’s eye.  There are no “random” colors to strive my attention else where, but it just simply allows my eyes to follow the great details encompassed in the piece. Jackson Pollock the artist of the piece used the drip technique that can also be said something Pollock introduced to the world. Pollock was an American artist, who was known the abstract expressionist movement. The abstract expressionist movement allowed the new era of artist to introduce a new technique that was a form of “accidental” art or even art that has no intended meaning.

I saw this particular piece at the "Abstract Expressionist New York" exhibit in The Museum of Modern Art. All I can think about is how large of a piece it was. My eyes were following every drip till it was lost in the mazes of other drips. I can feel the uncomfortable position Pollock may have been in to create such apiece based solely on dripping painting. He could have stepped on the already dripped paint on the canvas because it would have unwanted marks on it, but again in abstract art is there such thing as “unwanted” marks? I do know Pollock would have to move his entire body to create such a large piece and would take a lot of time and paint. The techniques that were being used by Pollock were considered unorthodox during that time in the art world. (Some still consider abstract art as not actually art) While just looking at the piece, I can see that Pollock dripped paint at some spots, while on others he might have poured large amounts of paint and used other objects to create such streak. Through my research it states, “The artist also used sticks, trowels, knives—in short, anything but the traditional painter's implements—to build up dense, lyrical compositions comprised of intricate skeins of line.”

The color of this abstract piece is remarkable because it gives the effect of how perfectly each color is being used the particular area, however none of the marks were intentional. There is a flow of the colors, black, beige, white and brown. The white tends to have a beautiful effect on the large “mess” but black is the color that controls the piece. It seems as though black is the one that is mainly on the piece and it perceives the message of boldness. The black is very strong and looks as though it is holding the connection between all the lines and colors.

Pollock states, “I can control the flow of paint: there is no accident.” From this quote I had many different interpretations and phases. First I questioned how could someone control the paint if it is strictly being splatters on the floor. After careful consideration, I analyses that Pollock thought he was creating a abstract work, he was using his body and movement to allow the paint to move where he wanted to. Thought his drips and splatters did not look intentional, they were very much placed where he wanted them. This brought up the question of accident and control. Many would consider Pollock’s works as accidents, but however thought each drip and placement of paint is not controlled, it certainly isn’t accidental. What makes Pollock such a great artist is his ability to combine accident and control and make such a beautiful piece.

Source: Jackson Pollock: Autumn Rhythm (Number 30) (57.92) | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art