This week we read an excerpt from John Berger's Ways of Seeing. The essay explored the unique way in which sight positions us in the world, how images position us in relation to their subjects, and how the meanings of images are affected by their context. I came away from the reading with several questions:
1. Berger writes about tack boards in bedrooms that combine reproductions, original artwork, and writings in such a way that "all the images belong to the same language and all are more or less equal within it." Is this a good, perhaps even ideal way of displaying and experiencing art? Is it noble to give a seven year old's drawing the same importance as a photograph of a Vermeer "masterpiece"? Is it sacrilege?
2. In the excerpt, Berger uses Van Gogh's Wheatfield with Crows to exemplify the effect of captions on our perception of an image. When we are told beneath the picture that it was the last painted before the artist's suicide, the meaning of the image immediately changes. For me, it became more haunting and I looked more closely and reverently than I previously had. Is this ability for our perceptions to be affected by a description of the background to a work something to be ashamed of or merely to accept? I believe that it is good to appreciate works of art based on their own merits, but is my perception after having read the caption not just as valid as my perception before the fact?
3. I like that Berger explores how reproductions alter the reception of a work, but never condemns it. Besides the fact that it would make him a hypocrite, his lack of a judgment on the effects reproductions have leaves us to question it for ourselves. Is it a bad thing when a reproduction isolates a part of an image or presents it to us in a specific order and context or is it just another artist creating a new work by pointing at a specific aspect of another work?
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Right Brians Mayans Hiya Aroww
We have recently read several articles taken from or inspired by the book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain by Betty Edwards. The philosophy of the book relies on the division of tasks between the left and right hemispheres of the brain. It is currently believed that the left brain operates in an analytical, logical way while the right is more spatial. Thus, when drawing, the left brain tries to organize visual information, be it from the eyes or imagination, by labeling its components and turning them into symbols. It then throws away all of the information not relevant for simple categorization. The right brain, however, can perceive images merely as forms, without assigning them labels. Therefore, the key to realism in drawing is to shift dominance to the right brain, allowing oneself to draw the forms one sees, rather than the icons one associates with them. Most of the articles include an exercise meant to help one recognize the differences between left and right-brain thinking so that one may eventually learn to switch between them (and thus in and out of “drawing mode”) at will.
I find the ideas presented in the articles fascinating and I think there’s probably a lot of credence to Edwards’ ideas. I’ve noticed that I’m generally only able to draw anything decently realistic when I’m observing the subject merely for its form and ignoring what it is. However, I don’t think that developing this way of thinking is all it takes to draw well. There’s a hand-eye coordination that I think is separate from the shift into right brain thinking that is extremely helpful in realistic drawing. It’s really more of a hand-mind coordination, as the problem pertains to translating the image in your mind, even when it is being thought of in a spatial, right-brain manner, into physical lines on a page. Even during my best, most right-brained drawing sessions, I’ve always struggled to make the drawing match what’s in my head. My brain seems to be telling my hand the right things, and it’s doing the wrong ones. By thinking spatially, I can produce an image about as close to the subject as someone with a natural “knack” for drawing. However, it takes me at least three times longer to produce my image. This hand-mind coordination is probably developed most through practice, as is the ability to shift into right-brained thinking. I am not expecting a quick fix and I know Edwards is not offering one, but I thought it necessary to point out that her assertions that her methods are the key to becoming “good” at drawing don’t sit very well with me. This leads me to ask, does the ability to translate one’s perceptions into physical forms rely solely (or almost solely) on the shift into right-brain thinking, or is there another skill that must be developed beyond an “average” level to make that possible?
Last Thursday’s class was a joint lesson with Ancient American Art History. Professor Cash helped us explore Mayan conceptions of time by explaining the prevalence of dates in Mayan writing, and their importance to it. She also taught us how Mayans wrote dates, which involved both lunar and solar calendars. The Mayans wrote their dates using several units of time, all of which are based upon a certain number of days. Unlike the Gregorian calendar, in which months are based on days, years are based on months, and centuries are based on years, Mayan units of dating are not necessarily any multiple of the next smallest unit. How did the Mayan dating system, with its use of both solar and lunar calendars and its day-based units, affect Mayan perception of time in contrast to our own?
I find the ideas presented in the articles fascinating and I think there’s probably a lot of credence to Edwards’ ideas. I’ve noticed that I’m generally only able to draw anything decently realistic when I’m observing the subject merely for its form and ignoring what it is. However, I don’t think that developing this way of thinking is all it takes to draw well. There’s a hand-eye coordination that I think is separate from the shift into right brain thinking that is extremely helpful in realistic drawing. It’s really more of a hand-mind coordination, as the problem pertains to translating the image in your mind, even when it is being thought of in a spatial, right-brain manner, into physical lines on a page. Even during my best, most right-brained drawing sessions, I’ve always struggled to make the drawing match what’s in my head. My brain seems to be telling my hand the right things, and it’s doing the wrong ones. By thinking spatially, I can produce an image about as close to the subject as someone with a natural “knack” for drawing. However, it takes me at least three times longer to produce my image. This hand-mind coordination is probably developed most through practice, as is the ability to shift into right-brained thinking. I am not expecting a quick fix and I know Edwards is not offering one, but I thought it necessary to point out that her assertions that her methods are the key to becoming “good” at drawing don’t sit very well with me. This leads me to ask, does the ability to translate one’s perceptions into physical forms rely solely (or almost solely) on the shift into right-brain thinking, or is there another skill that must be developed beyond an “average” level to make that possible?
Last Thursday’s class was a joint lesson with Ancient American Art History. Professor Cash helped us explore Mayan conceptions of time by explaining the prevalence of dates in Mayan writing, and their importance to it. She also taught us how Mayans wrote dates, which involved both lunar and solar calendars. The Mayans wrote their dates using several units of time, all of which are based upon a certain number of days. Unlike the Gregorian calendar, in which months are based on days, years are based on months, and centuries are based on years, Mayan units of dating are not necessarily any multiple of the next smallest unit. How did the Mayan dating system, with its use of both solar and lunar calendars and its day-based units, affect Mayan perception of time in contrast to our own?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)