“Unpainted Sculpture” by Charles Ray

Recently my family and I went to the Art Institute of Chicago and saw the exhibit, “Charles Ray: Sculpture, 1997-2014”. Charles Ray is a contemporary artist and the exhibit concentrates on two different types of his artwork. One type focuses on people and ancient motifs such as classical nudes and ancient techniques like bas relief. The other type focuses on dissecting objects of phenomenon. Ray’s “Unpainted Sculpture” is of the second focus. In order to create this piece, Ray studied automobiles that had been in traumatic car crashes. Eventually, Ray found a Pontiac Grand Am and chose to recreate the car because he felt that he could feel the presence of the dead driver within it. After picking out the car, Ray disassembled the car piece by piece and created fiberglass molds out of each and every single piece. He then reassembled the car with the fiberglass pieces which proved to be a challenge because the fiberglass pieces were bigger than the sheet metal of the car. Despite the name “Unpainted Sculpture”, the work is actually covered in white paint. It was called “unpainted” because Ray would normally use multiple paint colors and since this work has a raw, bleak look and feeling to it, the use of the word “unpainted” provides a more realistic description of the piece. I personally think that this is an incredible work of art. It is very powerful. When viewing this piece it is impossible not to imagine the horror of the crash. The combination of the white paint job, the meticulous recreation of every minute detail and the empty interior creates a ghostly aesthetic. A decal on the back of the car reads “Jesus is Lord” which suggests the faith of the driver and provides a personal element making the car crash that much more real. One must walk around the entire piece in order to soak in every detail. The fact that Charles Ray actually disassembled the car and then meticulously recreated it imbues the sculpture with much more significance and presence than if he had just painted the original car. By taking the car apart and reassembling piece by piece, Ray, in effect, dissects the car and its story while simultaneously creating a story of his own. He essentially makes the damaged car whole again by recreating each damaged part. By going to the extreme of remaking the car pieces himself, Ray makes the car his own and creates an unforgettable piece of art.

"Bird in Space" by Constantin Brancusi

When I first saw this piece I thought it was a flame, then, I realized from the title that it is a bird. While "Bird in Space" does have a vague pointed beak at its top, and a slight indent at the bottom section to indicate some sort of feet, the piece does not actually look like a bird. Instead, "Bird in Space" represents the idea of flight, and, in my opinion, freedom. Motion is evident in the sculpture because it invites the eye to soar upward along the lines of the sculpture. The highly polished, reflective bronze of the bird, or, more accurately, the flight, creates movement on its surface because light constantly is bouncing off of it and moving as the viewer moves. The highly polished surfaces of "Bird in Space", while common in Brancusi's work, is rarely seen with other sculptors. Brancusi frequently employs a hierarchy of material in his work. He often begins with wood and works his way up to bronze. A hierarchy of material is evident in this piece as well. The bases of Brancusi's work, if included, are always part of the piece itself. Brancusi strove to create simple forms. Brancusi was a revolutionary sculptor. He made the transition from realism to abstraction in sculpture. Part of his transition process was using oblong shapes to represent organic forms. Simplicity allowed Brancusi to capture the essence of flight in "Bird in Space". He captures the essence of being a bird. I think of freedom when I see this piece, not only because birds traditionally represent freedom, but also because I originally thought it was a flame. Flames are free. Flames create fires that can become powerful and both destroy and renew life. When people try to contain a large fire, they often fail. The motion of the soaring figure in Brancusi's "Bird in Space" creates the illusion of a flame, or the illusion of flight. It truly inspires awe and has become a symbol of modern art.
P.S. This sculpture was so unusual for the time it was created (1928), that when it was brought to the United States for a show at the Modern Museum of Art in New York, customs agents believed it was a hunk of metal to be used for some sort of industrial purpose, and, therefore, tried to tax it (artwork is not taxable). Apparently, the customs officials theorized that it was some sort of propeller. Brancusi had to go to court to defend his artwork.

"The Death of Sardanapalus" by Eugène Delacroix

Delacroix was a Romanticist. Romanticism is essentially the opposite of Neoclassicism, which I discussed with "Automedon with the Horses of Achilles". While Neoclassicism was all about order and reason, Romanticism was all about emotion. These styles were popular at the same time, so characteristics of both can be found in many works. This piece by Delacroix tends to be more Romantic. One of the characteristics of Romanticism is a touch of the exotic, which essentially means there is something in the painting that is not European. This piece is about an Assyrian ruler, Sardanapalus, so the story of the painting itself is exotic. In the story, Sardanapalus faces a defeat in battle and, rather than go through with an embarrassing defeat, he orders all of his possessions to be burned, including even his slaves and himself. The painting depicts the moments that follow that order; the guards are killing the prostitutes and slaves, destroying Sardanapalus’ belongings while Sardanapalus lounges on his bed. Violence is also a reoccurring theme in Romantic work, and this piece has its fair share of it. Emotion is central to Romantic work. Delacroix expresses emotion through the servants screaming out in pain as well as the quick brushwork. Delacroix painted the piece with emotion, so the brushwork is evident. The audience can empathize with the women, feeling their panic. One reason for this is that one woman is splayed across the bed. Rich colors are a component of Romanticism as well. This piece has strong reds which allude to the blood that was spilled on this day. Overall, “The Death of Sardanapalus” is a masterpiece of Romantic painting. Romanticism led to impressionism because of its looser brushwork and emphasis on emotion. In this way, Romanticism helped stimulate the first artists to branch off from tradition. I love seeing the progression from early art to Modern art, and Romanticism is an important step on that journey.

"The Two Fridas" by Frida Kahlo

In my Art History Class we just finished watching the movie "Frida" by director Julie Taymor, so I thought it was a good time to talk about the artist Frida Kahlo. Frida Kahlo is a prominant surrealist painter from Mexico. She is one of the most famous painters from Mexico, and she married another very famous artist from Mexico, Diego Rivera. They had a rocky relationship because Rivera was very promiscuous. Kahlo painted "The Two Fridas" soon after divorcing Rivera. It is considered to be a representation of the pain she felt for losing her husband. The Frida on the left depicts the Frida rejected by her husband. Her chest is ripped open, the inner workings of her heart exposed. This Frida also represents Frida's European heritage (her father was a German Jew). Before her marriage to Rivera she would wear the same fashions as the Europeans at the time. Rivera encouraged her to wear more traditional Mexican clothing. Kahlo chose to dress the Frida who was rejected by Rivera with clothing that Rivera encouraged her to change.The Frida on the right displays the Mexican heritage of Frida (her mother was Mexican) as well as the side of Frida that Rivera still loves. This Frida still has an exposed heart, but the inner workings of the heart are not displayed, showing that her heart is not broken. This Frida wears traditional Mexican clothing, like the clothing Rivera encouraged her to wear. She holds a portrait of Rivera. The vein that wraps around both of the Fridas begins with the portrait, so Rivera is the source of blood that runs through her heart, meaning that Rivera gives her life. The right Frida still loves Rivera, and wishes for him to come back to her. The Frida on the left cuts off the blood supply, breaking the bond with Rivera. The Fridas clasp hands and have one vein moving through both of their hearts increasing the connection between them. Kahlo clearly felt split about her separation with Rivera because while she still loved him, he was unfaithful. There are many ways to interpret this painting, and I think multiple interpretations is one of the marks of a great piece of artwork. Kahlo had a very painful life and she was able to express all the pain she felt through painting. It was her coping mechanism. This movie truly opened my eyes to the work of Frida Kahlo and I look forward to learning more about her in the future.
P.S. Rivera and Kahlo did get remarried and remained married until Kahlo's death.

Comparing Davids- "David" by Gian Lorenzo Bernini and "David" by Michelangelo

Both sculptures depict the biblical hero, David. Each work represents the time in which it was created. Bernini was a Baroque artist, and, as such, he created a dramatic David. Michelangelo was a Renaissance artist, and, so, his David is more calm. Bernini's David is in the midst of battle and about to kill Goliath, while Michelangelo's David is contemplative, ready for battle but not in the battle yet. Bernini's David has pursed lips, he is concentrating on the task at hand. Michelangelo's David has a tense face and alert eyes, he confident in his ability to fight. Bernini's David is in a dynamic pose, he stretches across space, getting the viewer involved in the events. Michelangelo's David is caught in a quiet moment, his twisted body suggests subtle movement. Michelangelo's David is reminiscent of High Classical Ancient Greek sculpture because he is nude, rendered in ideal proportions, and is standing in controposto (a position wherein the figure's weight rests on one foot), while Bernini's David is similar to Hellenistic Greek sculpture because of its dynamic pose and more expressive facial features. Both of the David's have ideal muscle tone, although Michelangelo's David is more muscular. An interesting detail in Bernini's David is that Bernini carved David's rope from the marble without keeping a piece of marble for support. Michelangelo, on the other hand, has a piece of support attached to his rope. This suggests that Bernini was more confident in his abilities than was Michelangelo. Most people view Michelangelo as the greatest sculptor in history, but even the great Michelangelo had occasional doubts about his abilities. Bernini is a famous Baroque artist, but not nearly as famous as Michelangelo. Michelangelo is a household name while Bernini is mostly known to those who study art. It is a shame that Bernini's art has become lost to the common person because he deserves recognition for his greatness. Both of these artists' Davids are incredible masterpieces, and, they are so different from one another that one cannot truly say one is better than the other.

"Automedon with the Horses of Achilles" by Henri Regnault

I honestly do not know very much about this painting specifically. I saw it when I went to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, and I was fascinated enough to take a picture of it. It is a very powerful painting. It has a very large canvas, over ten feet tall by ten feet wide. Like I said, I do not know very much about this painting, but my guess is it is Neoclassical. It was created when the Neoclassic style was popular. The style features a variety of characteristics, many of which are in this painting. One characteristic is vertical and horizontal lines. The man, Automedon, reaches his arm up, and the line beginning with his left hand is followed all the way through to his left foot, creating a very strong vertical line. One of the horse's legs echoes the leg of Automedon. The leg of the other horse (the rearing horse) is almost parallel to the ground, creating a horizontal line. Another characteristic of Neoclassical paintings is a subject from Roman or Greek mythology or history. The subject matter of this piece is a Greek myth from Homer's Iliad. Automedon is the charioteer for Achilles. The painting shows Automedon attempting to restrain the divine horses Xanthos (the darker brown horse) and Balios (the chestnut horse). The two horses can see the future and know their master will die in battle, so they are upset because they do not want to go to battle. The power of the horses is evident. They have bulging muscles that could not possibly belong to a normal horse. Neoclassical also stresses drawing with lines, instead of color, so this means that the figures have strong lines defining them. This is evident in this piece. There is not any brushwork in Neoclassical works and this is no exception. While I do not know for sure if this piece is Neoclassical, I think it is a pretty good guess considering it contains many Neoclassical characteristics. I love this piece. It is truly powerful, especially when you are standing right in front of it. It takes my breath away. To fully experience this piece, one must stand in front of the real thing. It's power is unrelenting.

"Composition with yellow, red, and blue" by Piet Mondrian

Mondrian is the most famous De Stijl artist. De Stijl is a Dutch art movement of the early 1900's. De Stijl translates to "The Style", and the artists connected with the movement concentrated on composition. One of their goals was to eliminate the touch of the artist and eliminate emotion, so very little brushwork is evident. The paintings seem almost machine created. The artists created nonobjective art, so it is not meant to represent anything, it is purely about composition. Mondrian, like many De Stijl artists used only primary colors plus black and white because they are the only pure colors. Mondrian also used only rectangles. Mondrian's compositions are asymmetrically balanced. Often he will balance a large colored rectangle with a couple of small colored rectangles. These paintings are very aesthetically pleasing, as they should be considering their only purpose is composition. Mondrian's compositions are so pleasing that the fashion designer Yves Saint Laurent used the design of one of Mondrian's paintings to create dresses in 1965 even calling them the "Mondrian Collection". De Stijl art is very versatile because it is so simple. I even am using it as inspiration for a design project for yearbook. I wanted to have a sleek, clean, modern design for a practice yearbook cover design, and I turned to Mondrian. Some of the De Stijl artists were architects, creating whole houses with the same principles which only furthers the point of De Stijl's versatility. In De Stijl houses, the entire house, including the furniture, is executed only in primary colors plus black and white. I think these compositions are calming, and I love immersing myself in these pieces.