Sunday, January 25, 2009

Art History thoughts

In my art history night class we are learning about the High Renaissance. I've never really been all that into Renaissance art simply because it seems to decadent. This distaste is probably more attributed to the complex and intellectual visual language being used. I'm naturally more attracted to expressionism. Simpler images with more psychological impact.
But when my prof showed us the slide of Michelangelo's "David" I was blown away. At first glance, I was blaze... another beautiful male nude yap yap... but look at the building tension in his muscles (hmmm) notice the weight shift to the one leg (ahh) look at the furrowed brow on our biblical hero (maybe not so confident, concerned to saythe least) look at the veins in his hands (marble is given flesh-like qualities, holy crap). And the coolest thing is that David implies Goliath. You are expecting to see this huge 40 ft man in armour down the hall or something. Quite a revelation.

It was good to hear a non-sinister explanation of the Mona Lisa too. Although I gotta say that Leonardo is kind of a charletan! An artist doesn't just come up with ideas (albeit ideas of the genius variety) but also sees the work through to completion. Not finishing it and saying that you lack the ability to complete is just letting yourself off the hook! If this were true or absolute, no art would ever get made. You are a master today. Today is the only day your work gets done. Oversimplified? Yes. Perhaps this is because my art unfolds through trial and error and lots of perserverance so I can relate more to Michelangelo more than Leonardo. Maybe this is observation is telling me that I need more inspired ideas... or that my art lacks that spark... but has all the perserverance of a glacier.

Is my art boring?
I'm going to go crawl under my table and hide now.

No comments: