Lesson 7 - Pray - Infamy

"It's just about someone's alter ego telling their own story." This documentary is about 7 individuals who are obsessed and completely dedicate their lives to graffiti art. The filmmaker interviews each one of them and shows a firsthand account of what being a graffiti artist means to them.

Something that was said in the first interview with Earsnot was "Graffiti was that one thing I could jump onto and slide out the window of my life." This caught my interest because it shows another purpose to why these artists choose a wall over a canvas. By being a graffiti artist you have to stay unknown because it's not legally allowed but it gives a whole new life for them. At one moment they can be a completely seemingly normal person and in another moment they are highly praised by those who follow their work. It's almost as if they are superheros of the art world.

With that being said I found Earsnot to be interesting because of his explanation of why he does graffiti. As he mentions that he pretty much did everything he could to be the center of attention with his friends and at school, he also mentions that he had to be a completely different person in front of his parents at home. He says in the video how his father took his flute away, the only thing he ever really liked, all because of something he did at school and it was around the same time that he found out about graffiti. I like that he knows what he's doing is bad but he's still doing it for his own pleasure and happiness and he's not going to let anyone take that away from him like his father took his flute away. As I said before he's living two completely different lives, one that's acceptable and one that's not, but the one that's not is his only escape from the one that is.

I found the idea of tagging very interesting. Every artist is different in their work, especially in graffiti. Graffiti artists have their own tags, whether it be their name or something that represents who they are as an artist and place it anywhere that they can. For me, the coolest thing about it all is that it's free and can go way more appreciated when money is not involved. Also, you can make a game out of it. Once you find a tag you like the most you keep a look out for it in other places and it's almost like a mini victory when you finally do find one. It's like you follow the artist on their quest to get their work out into the public.

Lesson 7 - Banksy - Banksy

This documentary is about a French amateur filmmaker, Thierry Guetta a.k.a Mr. Brainwash, who makes it his hobby to film the graffiti artist Banksy in action. The film's footage also captures Shephard Fairey Invader, and many other infamous graffiti artists at work. It is during film-making where he does actually gain footage of Banksy, who gives him the idea to start making his own street art where he earns his pseudonym Mr. Brainwash.

I really liked the intro to the film because it shows graffiti artists in action. Although they are considered artists, they are performing it illegally and the introduction shows how some rush through what they are doing and those who take a little more time but have to do it at night so that they remain unseen. Although it is illegal and I would never partake in something like this, I found it exciting and invigorating to see such rebelliousness caught on film.

What I found interesting about this film that was so different from the others was how the artists wished to stay unknown. When footage was shown of Banksy, his whole self was darkened and his voice was changed so you couldn't even tell who it was. In the other videos you see all kinds of interviews showing the artist completely and in this one the artists want to stay a secret. For me, I think it's not just because of the illegality of their work, but it's because once their known it takes the fun out of what they're doing. They love being artists but they like the game that comes with their specific style because it makes it more exciting to do. Also, no one knows who they are so the public can't connect the art with the personality making their opinions purely based on the art and not who and what they think about the artist.

I found both Guetta and Banksy interesting. What I liked about Guetta was that his interested was peaked when he saw his cousin, graffiti artist Space Invader, at work and it is then that he decides to dedicate his hobbies to documenting this talent from a secret art society. What I liked about Banksy was that he agreed to let Guetta film him, but not actually show him. Also, Banksy is the one who turned Guetta into a street artist as well. Realizing he was just filming and obscene amount of footage and not actually doing anything with, Banksy literally takes the camera into his own hands and shifts the story onto the filmmaker which is completely different than the other documentaries because there was never a situation where the person filming at the beginning of the video turns into the subject of it. If it wasn't for Banksy's help there really wouldn't be a documentary to begin with, just countless of numbers of videos of graffiti artists. "The film is about what happened when this guy tried to make a documentary about me but he was actually a lot more interesting than I am so now the film is kind of about him."

Lesson 7 - Davis - Basquiat

The career of Jean Michel Basquiat began in the streets of New York City in the 1970s, his identity hidden by his graffiti tag SAMO. It wasn't until 1981 where he would put his talent onto a canvas for the first time and in 1983 he is known as a rock star in the art world. But like any well-acclaimed rock star during the 80's, Basquiat had a heroin addiction and it would be the cause of his death at the age of 27. This video was created by Tamra Davis, showing the never before seen footage of her old friend, who's highest peak of his career was just at 25 years of age. "A young nobody who forged a brand of art and stardom never seen before. A collision of art, black history, and the street that still shapes pop culture. The Radiant Child".

What I really like about this documentary is that even though the main focus is about Basquiat during the highest point of his career, it shows how it all began and completely chronicles his life from every aspect, not just in the art world. Without going into too much detail on some things, it talks about his family life and his relationships with his father, as well as the type of child he was growing up before he stepped into art. It showed his relationship with Warhol, and without getting gruesome, it also showed the beginnings of his downfall to the very end of his life.

What I found very interesting was his rock star life. But the way it begins and ends doesn't surprise me all that much because it was a romantic depiction, told like any other about an artistic genius (whether musically or artistically) coming to fame at an early age. He was driven, rebellious, charming, and ambitious, but along with the sudden fame and wealth came temptation which was the ultimate cause of his demise.

I found Basquiat very interesting because his story was much more fascinating to me compared to the other artists we have gotten to know. Every artist has his trouble starting out but the fact that Basquiat had to start off with that trouble and compete against racism at the same time makes his accomplished yet short journey that much more exciting to follow.

Lesson 7 - Lecture

An example of graffiti art

In this video, Professor Peck takes us through the streets of two different neighborhoods in the city of Chicago: Pilsen and Wicker Park. It is in these areas that he shows us the different graffiti and mural art portrayed on walls, metal beams that hold up the train tracks, and even trucks whether they are abandoned or not. Throughout the video he distinguishes the difference between mural and graffiti art. "A mural is a piece of public art that's been sanctioned, been given permission, and that basically changes a few of the rules about how it can be made and how it will be made. One thing is the artist definitely has a lot more time to finish it." People who also do mural art are known because they aren't doing anything illegal, whereas graffiti artists are vandalizing property because they don't have legal permission to portray their art, which is why you would only know their art by the same tags or stencils that they use in each piece of work.

An example of mural art

What I really like about this video is how Professor Peck took us through the city and distinguished each type of art that he passed or found interesting. It gave a better sense of reality and gives us a brief background of the art that we literally see everyday no matter where we go.

What I found interesting was how each artist uses their own tag or stencil to differentiate their art from others. Because they can't be known by name it puts more of a focus on the art rather than the artist. For example, if an art investor were to buy a new painting, say there was a painting by Andy Warhol and the exact same painting by someone not as well known, the investor would go with the one painted by Warhol because of his background of success, even if the other artist might be a little better. Now with graffiti artists, we can just simply admire the work and not focus on who did the work.

I really like the idea of mural art because I think of it as being a legal rebel. Rather than using a canvas as the norm, the artist can really use whatever he/she likes in the outside world and
make it look fascinating. It's almost like hidden treasures for the public view because you never know which wall will have it.

Lesson 6 - Painters Painting

"If one finally had to say what it was that made American art great, it was that the American painters took hold of the issue of abstraction art with a freedom they could get from no other subject matter and finally made art out out it". This documentary by Emile de Antonio tells about New York and its upbringing as the hub of American art and the people who made it so.

I liked the introduction to this documentary. It starts off on a zoomed in object with a voice over of the narrator's opening line, "Painting kept getting entangled in the contradiction of America itself. We made portraits of ourselves when we had no idea who we were...". The narrator continues his monologue for the next minute and the camera then slowly begins to pan out until you realize that it was zoomed in on a wall of a building. The camera than slides its focus to scene beside the wall and we are looking at New York City in what seems to be post WWII, during about the 1960's. I liked that you didn't know where the scene was taking place until about 2 or 3 minutes into the video or you were left guessing as to what the zoomed in image in front of you really was.

artwork by Robert Rauschenburg

The purpose of the documentary was pretty much de Antonio going around talking to the artists in New York, from Robert Rauschenburg, to Andy Warhol, to even the art dealer Leo Castelli and asking them what abstract art means. Ironically the documentary is called Painters Painting, but you don't see too much painting being done in it but rather the artists being interviewed. This made the film very interesting because de Antonio produces a study of the postwar era when American painting was a total eclipse of art history and how abstraction came to be an important part of the art timeline, establishing its role in the evolution of yet another art style.

artwork by Andy Warhol 

I found Emile de Antonio for his strategy with this documentary. Rather than just interview a few super well-know artists, he included most of the major names in New York during the 60's and not just artists, but art dealers and critics as well. Rather than gain one perspective, he gained every perspective and insight on the artists who were impacting the art world in America and who revolved it all in the city of New York during that time. It helped get a sense of the transformation from abstract art to pop culture from the 1940s (postwar) to the 1980s.

Lesson 6 - PBS - Warhol

This documentary discusses the life and work of Andy Warhol who is considered the most important artist of the second half of the 20th century, maybe even the whole 20th century. Through his work and talents he is regarded as an American and a genius but sometimes you just can't tell which one.

What I liked about Andy Warhol was how little society really impacted him as an artist. In the first minute you see Warhol speaking to a reporter and she is questioning him as an artist. She starts of by stating a source saying that his work could not be considered original work and whether or not he agreed with that. After he agreed with her she continued on by questioning him again stating that he was just copying a common item. Again he agrees and she asks "Well why do you do that? Why not create something new?" and Warhol replies by saying "Because it's easier to do." The reporter then asks, "Well isn't this a sort of joke then that you are playing on the public?" and Warhol simply replies by saying, "No, it gives me something to do." Rather than giving into her questioning, Andy Warhol gives the simple answer. He's not beating around the bush and he's not trying to explain why his work isn't original because he knows it's not. He's not an artist for society, he is an artist for himself and that is what I think is the most important for an artist to remember. It's his work, it's his mind displayed across a blank canvas, the public's opinion has little to do with it and he continues to do what he wants to do. 

One of the things I liked about this documentary were the interviews and I liked seeing how many people actually praised and loved Warhol for who he was as an artist, when there were so many who did not like him at all and completely prejudiced him for his sexuality and "lack of artistic genius".  Dave Hickey, an art historian, has a lot to say about him. "He was the most American of artists and the most artistic of Americans. So American in fact that he is virtually invisible to us...In Warhol, the simplicity of a typical American citizen and the simplicity of artist genius are so intervened we cannot distinguish them, nor properly credit either his Americanness or his genius." Hickey also states, "He literally changed the world. And you change the world by changing what people look at, the priorities that they place on it and so he changed the world."  

What struck me as the most interesting was my reaction to the opening segment of the documentary with Warhol and the interviewee. In those first few seconds I did not like him. I found him very arrogant and rude. But then as the documentary went on my idea of him changed. Yes, he is an artist and a rule breaker but that disguise was held very lightly and in fact he fit this childlike persona of simply wanting to belong. But at the same time he enjoyed pretending that there was no meaning to what he was doing. However, when you look at the beginning of Warhol's life and his aspirations as an artist, the moment you take that step forward into his world it's hard not to fall in love with him. 

Lesson 6 - Hughes - Shock

"One of the myths of modern art is that it began like a prophet in the desert. The avant garde, the rejected outsider, armed with truth. Today that myth is lost, but at the start of the 70's the idea of an avant garde in painting and sculpture was winding down. It's now over, part of a period style and in the mean time Modernism itself has become our official culture." These were the opening remarks of Robert Hughes in this documentary where he speaks about the Modernism art style during the 60's and the artists who fulfilled this type off work. .

What I really liked about this documentary, that makes it so different from the others, is the introduction of a female artist. Women were mentioned and shown in other documentaries, this is true, but they were either the model/muse for the painter or in the most recently made documentaries they were the curators of a museum. Until this documentary, there was never a women shown and credited for her paintings. The female artist spoken about in this film was Bridget Reilly and how her work was severely critiqued for commercialization.

What I found extremely interesting is how art critics and historians can determine what is art and what is not and whether it should be shown in a museum or not. I feel like once something is pegged as not being art then the public is going to completely write of that artist altogether as either mediocre or just not very good. Which brings in art investments. People aren't going to buy a painting by an artist who is considered to be mediocre by the professional art connoisseur, because after 10 or 15 years they won't make a profit off of it when they finally decide to sell it. Now I find this interesting because as Professor Peck has stated before "Not all art is designed necessarily for you to enjoy it - visually or conceptually" and that is exactly what is being shown with some of these artists in the Modernism style of painting. Essentially during this time, there is no avant garde and with no avant garde there is no shock or stir to the style of painting which made it very hard for the modernist artist to commercialize their work. Especially since the critics are practically telling art investors not to buy it when they don't showcase in a museum or gallery.

I particularly liked the introduction to this documentary. I liked the ripple effect that occurred while showing different excerpts of a different clip or art from the artists spoken about in this film. It got me engaged and even more interested in the film because it made me feel like I was about to enter into an episode of The Twilight Zone.

Lesson 6 - Lecture

In this video Professor Peck introduces the minimalist and pop artists. One that is so relevant to us, even today, is artist Andy Warhol whose avant garde abstraction paintings of Marilyn Monroe and the Campbell's soup cans are  well known throughout the United States. The video discusses a few other artists during this art era, as well as other avant garde moves from these artists. 

One avant garde move that I found very interesting was the extreme abstraction. During this time every artist was doing it because they were reacting and going against the abstractions and other art work shows in museum and galleries at the time. What the artists chose do instead was to take an abstraction and fill it with objects, recognizable objects to be exact but it was considered extremely avant garde because it was going against art during that specific era and by that I mean that you did not find any type of advertising in galleries or museums and that is exactly what some of these artists were doing.

"You don't walk into a gallery and see advertising. You don't walk into an art gallery and see an American flag. In fact that is the last place you would expect to see an American flag at this particular time. If everyone is loving being an American post WWII then a lot of the avant garde artists are not going to be into that. Unless you're extremely avant garde." The person who I feel completely fits the description of extremely avant garde is Andy Warhol, especially in his recreation of the Brillo box. He is completely stepping away from the canvas altogether and recreating art in the form of shapes and using the objects surrounding it as well. This is why I found Warhol to be the most interesting artist talked about in this video because he completely redefined avant garde art from two-dimensional to three-dimensional.

What I liked a lot in this video was the timeline given of all the different art movements. It was interesting to see how many things in the art world had changed and how often it did. I also like that we are now in a more modern topic of artists.

Lesson 5 - Smithsonian - Pollock

He was the first American to capture the popular imagination. A "cowboy" from Wyoming, Jackson Pollock was always controversial and the pressures of his new-found celebrity compounded his life long struggle with alcoholism, a fight he lost when he died in a car crash at the age of 44.

"New needs need new techniques and modern artists have found new ways and new means of making a statement. It seems to me that the modern painter cannot express this age, the airplane, the atom bomb, and the radio in the old forms of the Renaissance or any other past culture. Each age finds its own technique." For Pollock that technique was abstract expressionism and he performed this through his famous drip paintings. He has earned both notoriety and abuse for his work and people have even gone as far to question whether or not it would be too hard to paint like that themselves so that they could be known as an artist as well. I find this interesting because like in the lecture video, it states that art is the finely tuned sense of craftsmanship that is celebrating a humans ability to render reality or fantasies. Anything can be art, Pollock proves that along with many others in the world. Yet what I find the most interesting is that it seems he is the only one, that I know of anyways, to be so publicly contradicted in the art world. He is ether the greatest painter in history or a kindergartner could perfect his paintings.

What I liked about this video is that they actually have Pollock narrating for part of it. I liked this because you are listening to the thoughts directly from the artist themselves rather than through the researched presentation of a narrator. You actually get the sense of what their emotion is when their talking and the actual facts. With a narrator there's always a posed question that they strive to answer through the video through their research, but only the artist can really answer that question. Granted it's hard when studying an artist like Michelangelo who's been dead for the last few centuries, but I think you get the point.

Who I found interesting was not just Pollock, but also the people interviewed that knew him personally. This adds a special affect to a biographical documentary because you're not just hearing from the Pollock himself, you're also hearing from the people who surround Pollock's life and knew him more than any other person. Rather than just listen to any other opinion from a critic about an artist, who listen to the opinion of someone who actually matters to the artist and without bias tell you how Pollock really was as a person.

Lesson 5 - Dali - Dali

With Orson Welles narrating, this documentary was a detailed account of Salvador Dali's emergence as an artist in the 1920's and his important contribution to surrealism in the 1930's all the way up until the present day of the film in the 1960's. It was filmed at his home in the seaside village of Port Lligat, just outside of Cadaqués, Spain which Welles narrates to be the source of his inspiration.

Salvador Dali 

To me, just from this video, Dali seemed to be the ultimate avant-garde of avant-gardes. He lived up to every sense of the term. "Dali painted things that were behind things...double image, guessing game image, multiple image, visual puns."(Welles). But I like that because he chose to be himself, he chose to be his own type of artist, and he accentuated his weirdness so much that it almost seemed normal.

However, I didn't care so much for the film. I am not a huge fan of documentaries as it is and the fact that this one was filmed in the 60's and had poor quality didn't help either. I also couldn't understand what was being said all that well, especially when Dali was speaking, which made it hard to pay attention to what was being shown.

I did some extra research on Dali and he states something in his autobiography that I found very interesting because it almost explains his personality in a way. "All my eccentricities I habitually perpetrate, are the tragic constant of my life. I want to prove I am not the dead brother but the living brother. By killing my brother I immortalize myself." Dali's older brother died during infancy and by fighting the memory of him, he felt the need to be a show-off, not for the money but for himself. Which is completely misunderstood by other Surrealists during the time because they saw him as a "grubby money grabber" rather than looking at him for his talents.

Lesson 5 - Scorsese Picasso Braque

This was a documentary produced by Arne Glimcher, with discussions from Martin Scorsese and various other artists and film producers. It was a cinematic tour through the effects of technological revolution and it tried to show how cubism, founded by Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque in 1907, supposedly translated the movies' revolutionary portrayal of time, space, and motion in fine art.

Pablo Picasso 

One of the things Scorsese says in this film was "Cubism was not a style. It was a revolution that instigated a profoundly radical change of form - in fact a radical change of vision itself." I found this interesting because the film itself seems to have been based around the assumption that changing technology drives artistic innovation. For instance, Picasso and Braque had a similar passionate interest in new technology and their art was based on the next big thing technologically speaking. They were fascinated by aviation and cinema and formed their own film club because of it. They were enthusiasts of technology and it was becoming because they were part of the generation that experienced this at the start.

What I liked about this documentary was that it wasn't just about art. It was taken out of the spotlight and combined with the effects of technology and film making, which is still art but in the new technological form and an incorporated element of popular culture.

Georges Braque 

What I found to be the most interesting there was an avant garde-esqueness to this film. Glimcher makes the case that the appeal of film has always been in its ability to heighten reality rather than accurately depict it. The film demonstrates how early cinema succeeded by defying audience expectation of the real. Though cinema is the most effective means available to show reality in its purest form, it's also a paradox because it resists the natural tendencies that drives the artists towards further abstraction of their own work which is what Glimcher claims in his case. He reasons that cinema's aim is to bend and twist reality in order to convey abstraction.

Lesson 5 - Lecture

What is art? You're asked a question like this and what answer immediately pops into your mind? My my mind automatically just focuses in on painting but clearly that's not it because it is way to narrow minded of an answer. As Professor Peck states in the video, Art is the finely tuned sense of craftsmanship which celebrates a humans ability to render reality or fantasies. Now I found this interesting because it's obviously true. Anyone can deem something as art in any shape or form and there will always be someone who agrees that it's art and someone who doesn't. That's why we call them art critics.


Soon following this question, we learn from the video about the artist Marcel Duchamp, whom I found to be very interesting, and here's why this question correlates so well with him. He brought to the art world the new form of art called conceptual art - art that inspires the mind. The painting that pretty much defines conceptual art is the "Fountain", a urinal placed on its side. This was also part of the cubism technique that Duchamp skilled in the most. With cubism you bring in a fourth dimension, a different angle of the same object. And Duchamp did just that with the "Fountain"(Shown on the left). He gave a different conception of an object that at every angle you can tell it's a urinal, but his ideas made it into a fountain because he looked at it from a conceptual angle, another dimension. "He changed the long tradition of linking labor and merit in art."


What I liked about this video was that it also served as a history lesson. Obviously when you think of the World Wars you think of the war itself and how many people lost their lives during both of them and then the economic and financial problems that occurred with both. You don't really connect the war with art and how it was referenced by artists."People are defined by the political moment that their in, by the technological moment. Because they feel connected artists feel like they have to reference it somehow and people feel artists are responsible for talking about them"(Peck). Before the wars there was a prolonged peace and beauty in the paintings. Between the wars there was dark imagery and also considered a creative hot bed. After the wars it was a new city and new art. World War I and II probably had as much impact on nature as they did on politics. World War I prolonged areas of peace (Impressionism) after being driven by anarchy and angst.

Lesson 4 - Bugler - Seurat

"It is the most loved, most scrutinized, and most enigmatic picture. It was an experiment and an obsession." - This was stated by the narrator of this documentary, Jeremy Bugler who captures the opinions of Georges Seurat's painting "A Sunday on La Grande Jatte - 1884".

What I found interesting about this video was that it didn't so much focus on the painter, but rather on the painting. It also had the most interviews held on any documentary seen so far. But it wasn't just interviews with art critics and historians but also of people going to the Art Institute of Chicago and seeing the painting and being asked what their reaction to the painting was. This was interesting to me because it wasn't just teaching us another history lesson on a painter and their masterpiece but rather what history was teaching the art lover and what they thought of it. I liked this video for the fact that the narrator didn't show himself in it. In my opinion it was because he was trying to place all the focus on the art and the painter, rather than himself, and he was just simply guiding us through it all.

An interesting fact about Seurat's painting was how long it took. Although it was an Impression, this painting took 2-4 years to be completed. In the painting there are 48 people, 8 boats, 3 dogs, and a monkey. Now what makes it so interesting is, because its an impression, where did Seurat get the idea to paint his exaggerated reality? By painting this through dots of colors, Seurat creates the most confusing, yet incredible painting during the Impressionism era.

Lesson 4 - Schama - Van Gogh

"What am I, in the eyes of most people?" - This was the opening line of another documentary installment of Simon  Schama's Power of Art: Vincent Van Gogh. The documentary follows the life of Van Gogh and his "turbulent and overwhelmingly powerful" painting "Wheatfield With Crows".

Wheatfield with Crows

What's interesting after watching this video was our lack of knowledge about Van Gogh. The first time I ever learned about him was in art class in middle school and what I learned was that he was an artist and that he was crazy person who cut his own ear off and killed himself. Albeit true, there's more to the facts. Yes, he was crazy and was known for his "spasms of craziness" but he was also an "insatiable bookworm" who was fueled by a deep-seated religious drive. And some of the facts are slightly exaggerated. Van Gogh did not cut his full ear off, he only cut a piece off. And what is so shocking about his suicide was that he committed it a few weeks after his infamous painting "Wheatfield With Crows" emerged to the public, which was around the time that Schama described Van Gogh to "have his life together".

What I liked about this video was how it was dramatically filmed.  The camera would follow Schama and then cut to an acted scene with Vincent Van Gogh portrayed by an actor. Although it would follow the actions of the actor, it would have Schama with the voice over and we would also hear the brush strokes of the artist at work. Although its showing two different shots, the program does not give them their own separate screen times. We see the actor portraying Van Gogh go from eating dirt to eating his paint. Never has television taught art history with so much horrifying, yet appealing dramatics.

Vincent Van Gogh was so interesting to me because of his passion for his work. Schama states that "he had this belief that people wouldn't just see his picture, but would feel the rush of life in them; that by the force of his brush and dazzling color, they'd experience those fields, faces, and flowers in ways that nothing more polite or literal could ever convey. He believed that his art would reclaim what once belonged to religion- consolation for our reality through the relish of the gift of life." His life goal was to open eye and hearts and he did so with "Wheatfield With Crows."

Lesson 4 - Collings - Impressionism

In this documentary, Revenge of the Nice, Matthew Collings takes us through the lives of 4 renowned artists during the 19th century: Gustave Courbet, Edouard Manet, Claude Monet and Paul Cezanne. From Courbet's rebelliousness and his painting "The Painter's studio" to Cezanne's complication of Impressionism niceness, Colling 2 hour summarized journey explains the impact these artists made on the Impressionistic era.

"The Painter's Studio"- allegory of society

An interesting fact about these 4 men was that they all knew each other and hung out together in a cafe. They even bought each others work. It was during one of these leisurely hang outs that they came up with this radical idea: "Art should be real and not false". Which can be exemplified in Courbet's painting "The Painter's Studio". Though he is disguising his mockery of political figures in 19th century France, Courbet is depicting his detest for these people in a 20 ft painting for the world to see because he wants the truth to come out, yet he still had to be careful with how much truth he showed because such mockery of important figure heads was not allowed.

What I liked about this video was how Colling's would show the specific landscape and then the Impression of it to compare with. I also liked that he went to where the painters world. I found every artist talked about in this documentary to be interesting and it was because of how Colling's described them. Through the description of the historical events, it made the personal and professional lives of the painters much more appealing. They became human with their own personal problems rather than a hero like past painters with their brilliant masterpieces

Lesson 4 - Lecture

An example of simplification abstraction

This lecture focused on Impressionism. As simple of a concept Impressionism is, it also confused many people in regards to how they perceived art for the first time. Impressions is the basic information to communicate an idea. One way to communicate this idea is through simplification abstraction. What was interesting about this is it is exactly what the term itself says, simple. An example of a simplified abstract is stick figures, which is something you never would consider art because it is done by the hands of a five year old and of those who are trying to simply express an idea who have no artistic ability. But once explained, it made perfect sense. Because simplification abstraction means to turn down the detail, and turn up the creativity and individualism. The term also links to the confusion of those experiencing Impressionism for the first time. As Professor Peck states in the video, Impression is a scale with one end completely recognizable and accurate and the other end unrecognizable and non-distinguishable. Which poses the interesting question, is light and shadow just enough?


Impressionism is interesting to me because of its quickness. You see so many impressionistic paintings of the outside, whether it's a front door, a wall with ivy, a flower, a sunset, or even people sitting outside. But rather than spending months and even years on the painting, you have to grab it on the spot before the natural light you are using goes away. Which is why the painter doesn't focus so much on the detail of what they are creating. As long as the art viewer knows what's being shown, it doesn't matter what kind of detail they used. What matters is how the viewer perceives it. There are multiple paintings of the same thing, each one different than the other because it is the portrayal of the painters impression of the landscape or object. It's what they see while painting because it is part of their reality. It's their own documentation of the exaggerated truth.

Now going back to the question, is light and shadow just enough, here's why it helps me explain why I liked this video so much. Professor Peck spends the entire day outside and we see how the camera catches the shot of him walking and talking as the light and shadows are changing. From noon to sunset, you see how light affects the way you watch the video because even though at some points light isn't cast on Peck, it can be cast on the building behind him. So for me light and shadow are enough, because it's all about perspective, and this video is an accurate portrayal of how Impressionism is your own exaggerated reality.

Lesson 3 - Schama - David

Another artist whose paintings were inspired by revolution was Jacques-Louis David, a Parisian born in the 18th century. Another part of the Power of Art series, Simon Schama takes us through another journey of an artist who lead the neoclassical style of painting in its heavy impact on the public in the 18th century.

I liked this video because I liked how the lighting and dramatics affected how Schama described the Frecnh Revolution. The theatrics of it kept me engaged. I also liked how the soldiers were portrayed with their chanting and march because it made it seem as if the Revolution came to life.

The interesting person in this video was Jacques-Louis David and his love for the Revolution that helped him strive in his work. He used painting as his way of typing his passion for the Revolution together. However, he didn't necessarily paint so that his work could be displayed in a gallery, but rather to communicate and create propaganda of the 18th century ideals of civilization.

One thing I found very interesting was David's painting "Death of Marat". This was the painting that denied him burial in France. It was described as his most unforgettable masterpiece and crime. Schama states about the painting, "You can't doubt that it's a masterpiece, but that's to separate it from the apalling moment of its creation, the French Revolution. This is Jean Paul Marat, the most paranoid of the Revolution's fanatics, exhaling his very last breath. He's been assassinated in his bath. But for David, Marat isn't a monster, he's a saint. This is martyrdom, David's manifesto of revolutionary virtue." I find this interesting because I think if anyone truly wanted to understand exactly the kind of passion David had for the French Revolution, all they would have to do is look at the "Death of Marat" (shown below)

Lesson 3 - Hughes - Goya

In the 18th and 19th century, Francisco Goya was one of the most radical artists that ever lived. Through the help of Robert Hughes, we are taken through the life of Goya and how he completely changed civilizations knowledge of artists altogether.

What I liked about this video was how Hughes talks about Goya's work shifting from light to dark and how he describes him as a topographer of the inner self - madness, fear, and despair. Through his work Goya tells the truth of suffering, rather than sugarcoating civilization with the false heroics, which is why he was such a good war photographer.

What I found most interesting was how much people actually misunderstood Goya. As some described him as a rebel with his work, he was really just telling the truth and protesting against horror and superstition. Another thing was how inspiration and revolution tie into this video. At the height of Goya's career in the 19th century, he had the war with the French and the guerillas to thank for his inspiration.

The person I found most interesting in this video was actually Robert Hughes and his story. After barely surviving a car accident in 1999, the art critic threw himself into the life of Goya after seeing him while in a coma and he felt the only way to free himself from the terrifying visions was to write himself out of it. Yet he believes after all his research, he will never fully understand Goya as a person. "Our inability to measure up the peculiar intensity of Goya's art might be sadly depleted today. But if that is what Goya shows us, at least he shows us something."



Picture: Painting by Goya "The Third of May 1808"

Lesson 3 - Collings - Civilization

Matthew Collings explores civilization and art in this video. "Civilization is what we do to not just be our basic, absolute, tight driven selves, it's the higher route. It's people teaching each other through objects of monuments they leave for future generations. They're talking in signs and marvels. It is what history books can't show us. It is what other civilizations yearn for: what can we be if we are better than ourselves?"

What I like about this video is its consistency with visiting Italy and focusing on the start-ups in Italy, but it also moves to France and gives us a change of scenery.

What was interesting that was said was the posed question; What is god? The answer: He is an abstraction, he stands for our higher values. With the follow up: Do we need him anymore? "It is not god that will make us civilized. It is us, our own humanity and our feelings is our guide to the good" This is interesting because it leads into the theme of this video and the description of the works of the two painters who we focus on.

People I found interesting in this video were Goya and David and what they did for civilization in modern art. As they lived through the explosion of the French Revolution and it's fall out, they experienced the chain reaction of it and the rise of the philosophical idea of the human individual and what they had as opposed to God: human feeling. With this philosophical idea in mind, these two painters depicted a startling world of human emotion.




Pictures above: Goya (right) and David (left)

Lesson 3 - Lecture

A chain reaction is a series of events, each caused by the previous one. In this video we are introduced to the idea of a chain reaction and the circulating chain reaction on how artist's inspiration can power a revolution and vice versa.

What I found interesting from this was how inspiration is the spark. Inspiration was defined as many things. "Madness and Irrationality"; in the words of Freud it is the soul of the artist coming out. After Diderot came out with his many copies of the "Encyclopedie", it inspired Thomas Paine to write "Common Sense"- the outlined rational for the American Revolution.

Who I found interesting from this video was Denis Diderot who wrote "Encyclopedie" and Thomas Paine who wrote "Common Sense" and sold 500,000 copies of 1776. They are the factors of the chain reaction "Inspiration powering Revolution" If it weren't for Diderot, Paine would never been struck with the idea to write Common sense which was about the Revolution, in the simplest of terms, so that everyone could understand it and begin to fight back.

     

Pictures above: Thomas Pain: Common Sense, Denis Diderot: Encyclopedie, and Benjamin Franklin: Poor Richard's Almanack.

Lesson 2 - Schama - Rembrandt

Like the documentary on Caravaggio, Simon Schama takes us through the life of Rembrandt van Rijn. However, rather than beginning with his early life, Schama takes us through the adult life and his late works, after his near bankruptcy in 1656 due to the change in artistic style.

The most interesting person in this documentary was Rembrandt. He pretty much discovered the term "selfie", but at this time the term didn't concern itself with an identity seeking teenager. Rembrandt was a fighter in his time as an artist. It's not to say that Rembrandt wasn't accredited or famous for his work, but as he got older the demand for brightly colored French paintings was high and his work was not called upon by his regular patrons because he favored more of a murky oil paint. Yet, despite his decline in fame, he didn't give up on himself.

Something I saw in this video that peaked my interest, was Rembrandt's Self-Portrait (1658) which was his comeback to the paintings in demand at that time because in Schama's words it was "a symphony of defiance that depicted vast meaty hands which are either going to create a masterpiece or strangle critics." However, what's important about this is that Rembrandt wasn't fighting to become recognized again by buyers, rather it was his way of saying that he was still relevant as an artist except he just didn't care if his work was appreciated or not. He knew he was still making his mark in the art world but he didn't care how.

An interesting fact from this video was Rembrand't painted version of Samson and Delilah. Rather than going with the norms of the painting with a shirtless Samson asleep on the lap of Delilah, Rembrandt paints him fully clothed and more vulnerable in that it "ties Samson to his lover and to his fate." Rembrandt also has Delilah grasping a piece of Samson's hair, as if about to cut it, and her other hand his stroking his hair. What I like about this is that Rembrandt seems to focus his paintings more on the emotional and hidden meanings of the actions shown in them, rather than the physical features that everyone expects. In this case with Samson and Delilah, "In one gesture, Rembrandt gets to the heart of his story, the tragic inseparability of amorous, tenderness, and brutal betrayal."



Both Rembrandt's work: The picture on the left is of Samson and Delilah and the picture on the right is the Self Portrait (1658)

Lesson 2 - Schama - Caravaggio

This video, guided to us by Simon Schama, revolves around the life of Michelangelo Merisi di Caravaggio,  who is not only a genius but in this case the villain as well, and his most renowned work, David with the Head of Goliath.

The most interesting person in this video is of course Caravaggio. In the opening scenes of this video, Schama prompts a question being why did Caravaggio paint himself as the severed head of Goliath in the hands of David? It was known to be his way of "painting his way out of trouble", which in his case happened a lot. He was a dangerous man with a brilliant mind in the artistic world because it his through his paintings that shows the push to a naturalistic approach and the theatrics of lighting.

One of the most interesting things I heard throughout this video was when Schama stated, "“For me the power of Caravaggio’s art is the power of truth, not least about ourselves. If we are ever to hope for redemption, we have to begin with the recognition that in all of us, the Goliath competes with the David.” Because he was going for a more naturalistic appeal to his paintings and giving an earthy and physical detail, by Caravaggio placing himself in that painting he is manifesting the internal struggle he has with his sinful and earthly existence, which then promptly answers the question Schama had proposed to us in the beginning of the documentary.

This documentary was interesting to watch because it provided reenactments of Caravaggio's life giving a firsthand experience and an accurate visualization of what it was really like, rather than just hearing about from historians.


This is Caravaggio's painting "David with the Head of Goliath" 

Lesson 2 - Hockney - Lens

This video tells the story of David Hockney and the secret knowledge of a lens. The only equipment you need for a lens is a piece of glass. David Hockney, the most celebrity living artist, reveals that 400 years before the photograph was first invented, artists were using simple cameras to capture stunningly realistic images on canvas, through the use of a lens or even more simpler than that, your eyes and in this video he specifically researches how Old Master painters caught nature through a lens or mirror.

"Photographs monopolize reality and truth, just as paintings did in the past" This was said by Hockney explaining that even a photograph you may have taken does not compare to what you see through your own eyes.

Something that was said in this video that I found interesting were the descriptive words used for paintings such as real, natural, photographic, and true to life. Which is based around Hockney's biggest question which is how did painters capture such value in their paintings? The main things they had in the 15-18th century were their eyes and a piece of glass, so how were they able to capture such intricate detail, for example of a piece of armor, patent fabric, or chandelier, without a camera and other technology that we have today? And that was with a camera obscura.

One of the things I saw in the video that interested me was how Hockney demonstrated how easy it really was to just use a piece of glass as a lens without anything else involved. This was shown in the scene in his stage in Hollywood with two dancers and he placed the glass in a holder and closed the curtains around it to darken the room and the light reflecting through the glass reflected the image of the dancers dancing against the wall, although the image was upside down.

I liked this video for the demonstrations shown in order to back up the evidence given, which to me was a little better than a couple of the other videos because I was able to see how it actually worked, rather than just a theory on how it worked.




This is an example of a camera obscura and how the image was reflected through the lens and onto the wall. 

Lesson 2 - Lecture

Again for this video, just like the first lecture video, this was an introduction to the videos for this week and what was expected to be in each one. For the videos this week three topics had to be kept in mind: Topic 1 The Lens: The First Camera; Topic 2 Light: Adding Drama; and Topic 3 Hyper-reality: Theater on Canvas. These three topics are useful when looking at the videos of Hockney, Carvaggio, and Rembrandt.

What I liked about this film and how it was different from the others was the certain scenes in which Professor Peck would record the setting while recording the camera that was recording everything through the use of a mirror. I liked this because the camera was recording a certain perspective/setting while recording itself record that perspective it gave us, through the use of a mirror. "Mirrors allowed painters of the Renaissance and thereafter to document reality. Through the lens of the camera you gain the reality of what is being recorded and through the reflection of the mirror you gain the reality of the camera.

Something that was said in the video that I found to be interesting was how the camera has influenced the painter. in the 1600s, the camera used was pretty much a dark room with a hole or sometimes a lens. In the 1850s, the camera was still just a dark room but the difference was that chemistry was involved. This was around the time of Impressionism, so painters had a completely different job at hand, and that was they did have to render themselves to reality because they now how tools that could do it for them and a better job of it as well.





This was how painters were able to produce paintings from picture form through light and the reflection of a mirror.

Lesson 1 - Michelangelo - Marlow

This final video is just like the one about Leonardo Da Vinci, except instead it is about Michelangelo Buonarroti Simon who was the most potent sculpture and Da Vinci's biggest rival. Taking a look at another great artist during the Renaissance period, in this video I was shown the life and artistic onset of the man who could practically bless marble with only a hammer and a chisel.

Factually, what I liked that was said was that Michelangelo was always working, so much that he could barely eat. In other words, he was the complete opposite of Da Vinci, yet both men had incredibly gifted hands.

One of the most interesting facts to me was Michelangelo's obsession with the human body and how he so accurately portrays it in his sculptures, giving each figure a human fleshy look to it despite only being made of marble. Sometimes he was criticized for this because it was considered inappropriate for these nude and undesirable figures. For example, the Sculpture of Bacchus, rather than being poised, was staggering almost as if the figure was actually drunk and the body was fleshy and wholesome. Cardinal Riario, who had commissioned for this sculpture, did not approve of its appearance and entirety. Another example of this is the statue of David, which "residents of Florence thought a statue of a nude man was inappropriate for a prominent position such as it was outside of the Florentine government." (Tim Marlow, the narrator of this video). 

I did not enjoy this film as much just for the fact that, although there can't be much done about it, I don't think film accurately portrays the beauty of such work like the statue of David and the Sistine Chapel. I only say this because having been to Florence twice and seeing the statue of David both times, as well as visiting Rome and seeing the Sistine Chapel in person, film will never be able to compare to what you can actually see firsthand through the human eye. Though it is a nude male, the statue of David is elegant and graceful and something I think you can only truly experience in person. And no picture will ever be able to fully grasp the breathtaking beauty of the Sistine Chapel. Despite the self-destruction over the years of Michelangelo's most prominent work, the detail seen in sections of this extravagant ceiling could turn anyone into an art lover for its intricacy and incredible life span.

Lesson 1 - Da Vinci - Bruce

He was known as the ultimate Renaissance man, a man of mystery and secrets, with the skill to think beauty and create it on a canvas. In this video, I was taken through the life of Leonardo Da Vinci through the help of Fiona Bruce. In the beginning of the video we are informed that there are no more than 15 paintings by Da Vinci scattered all around the world, however New York City contained a newly discovered painting by Leonardo. This painting of Christ, known as the Salvator Mundi (Savior of the World), is most likely the Lost Painting of Leonardo Da Vinci. Through this video I was shown this history of Da Vinci, his residence of work and personal life, the locations of some of his most famous work, the upcoming exhibition of Leonardo and his paintings, and whether or not the Salvator Mundi was really the work of Leonardo.

What they said in this video that interested me was the complete life of Leonardo Da Vinci, and speaking of the kind of man he was. An example being that he was very mysterious and secretive. Some thought he was unreliable and had a flaky reputation, yet he was exceptionally talented. Da Vinci was also known for many other things besides painting. In the video it shows a letter he had written to Duke Ludovico Sforza asking for employment and introducing himself as an inventor and maker of weaponry, with an infinite amount of attack and defense. In the letter he also stated he was an artist but it was the last thing he mentioned almost as if he was downplaying his talent or trying to avoid it because he didn't think he would be up to par to the duke's work standard. 

A fact that I found most interested was in regards to Da Vinci's work ethic. As stated already people thought he was unreliable and it took him a very long time to finish commissions. Sometimes he never finished the projects and Leonardo was left with many unfinished works. Luke Syson, Curator of the National Gallery, stated, "He started a picture and simply didn't know how to finish. He would bite off more than he could but he was intimidated of himself and what he could do." Yet, despite this, at the hand of Leonardo Da Vinci some of the greatest paintings in the world had arisen. But even his work ethic showed in them too. For example, in his painting of the Last Supper, only 20% of the original painting remains intact and that is because the greco painting and Leonardo's laziness and indistinguishable time frame did not mix well. Another example, is the painting Francesco del Giocondo asked for of his wife. However, he never received the painting because Da Vinci took it with him when he left Florence for good. Of course, this painting was none other than the Mona Lisa. Despite how he functioned as an artist, these characteristics gave him an edgy, almost rebellious quality because he did everything on his own terms and not when people told him to, and he produced some of the most subtle and intricately beautiful paintings this world has seen.

I liked this video most because it provided a story and a mystery with the life of Da Vinci and the outcome of whether or not the Salvator Mundi was in fact one of his own. The simple explanation as to how was determined to be was given by Martin Kemp, "Let's look for what's wrong with it and in this case I couldn't find anything."

Lesson 1 - Modern Marvels Paint

In my last post, I posted a picture of cave wall paintings by neanderthals, who at the time were living in Spain. Now, what is interesting about this picture is what was on the walls. Not so much the image, but the material used to produce that image. This was one of the first usages of what became later known as paint, which is the main focus of this video. What was seen in this video was the history of paint, how it was used, who used, and more importantly how it was made and is continued to be made today.

The fact that I found most interesting in this video was one of the ways in which paint can be a benefit. What I am specifically referring to is its role in electronics circulating in space, for example satellites. Paint is known to be a vital factor in extending the life span of space products. This is due to the fact that before its application to the electronic device, the paint is equivalently zapped with UV radiation to that in space, this controls the temperature of the satellite. Paint needs to be semi conductive to control the static charge in the satellite. With all the activity produced by the satellite, the paint controls the static build up because if it didn't the static would be self-destructive to the electronics.

What I saw in the video that peaked my interest was the different processes paint goes through to be made. The only time I ever really thought about paint was the type of color I should buy for the project I was working on, not so much the thought and machinery used to create that specific color. I also enjoyed seeing the different stages in time of how paint was used. For example, with the earliest make the automobile, the cars were painted by one man with a brush in hand with a type of paint that took weeks to dry. Whereas, now cars are dipped into an electrocoat-which is where the car is dipped into a pool of primer with a negative charge and a positive charge in which the particles float onto the car's surface and stick- baked, and then spray painted with the chosen color and clear coat and dries in a short time span. I found this interesting because it shows the technological advances that were discovered in order to be more proficient in something that requires meticulous and efficient work.

This is what the electrocoating pool of primer looks like

My understanding of painting was changed a bit after watching this video. I always knew there were different kinds of paint and types of paintings, but I never really thought about the struggles painters went through in the beginning with only being subjected to a certain amount of colors and the processes they needed to complete in order to get a certain color. But little by little advances were made, despite the minimal resources, with the creations of different types of paintings such as impressionism and oil paintings, as well as the scientific discoveries in the resources used to make paint and types of paint that allowed for these advances in paintings, as well as everything else they were used on. For example, when it came to latex paint, John Kordosh (Product Development Manager, Homax Products) stated: "I think the invention of latex paint was the single most important breakthrough in the history of paint."

Lesson 1 - Lecture

The basis of this video was pretty much an introduction of the videos that needed to be watched in order to complete this weeks assignment, as well as understanding what Professor Peck is looking for in these blogs. Now, what struck my interest was how he described imagery as its own language. "Images transcend language, transcends time. They allow you to be able to understand things, people that don't speak your language." This makes sense because images have always been, in my opinion, self explanatory. Unless you are asked to look for something specific or determine a hidden meaning of the image, you can always maintain a clear understanding of what the image is showing or saying, in this case. Like in speaking a language, you can clearly understand when someone, who speaks your own language, states "I love dogs"and if someone, who didn't speak your language, could just as easily express the same sentence through the portrayal of a picture or painting and it would be understood just the same. It is a natural understanding of  speaking a language that can be detected through thought and listening and when looking at an image it is the detected language through thought and sight.

This film was different than the others because it was just a brief overview of what was to come in the other videos, which I liked because it prepared me for what I was about to learn. It slightly changed by understanding of film making due to the fact that I realized it's all about perspective. I say this because no scene was the same as the others. Professor Peck would change positioning of the camera, his stance in front of the camera, and even the scenery in which he recorded the video. This was more interesting to see because it wasn't like sitting in a classroom staring at the front of the room during the whole class. By changing what he was doing and where he was located, it forced me to pay attention because I felt like I was going to miss something if I didn't, despite the fact that it was only an overview. This helped me become aware of what was occurring in the video, which helped me for the other videos as well.


This is an image of the cave painted by Neanderthals in Spain that Professor Peck had us google.

INTRODUCTION

Hi Professor Peck,

My name is Mariana Hoerr and I am an upcoming Junior at SXU. I am currently majoring in Nursing with a minor in Spanish. My dreams for my future career are to pursue my nurse practitioner's degree in neonatal or pediatrics and I hope to one day be able to travel the world in my profession and care for babies/children, as well as new mothers in teaching them about the care for their children while living in a third world country. The grade I am interested in receiving in this class is an A.