Desert Storm

 

As I looked at this abstract image I started picturing a desolate desert with winds blowing, shrubbery and almost seeing people walking on the desert floor. As I continued to read the description I was surprised to see that it was not a painting at all, instead it was a macro photograph of agate rock.

This intrigued me as it showed how ingrained symbolism is in our minds. The lines in the rock appear like wind to us, we see the dusty sky and desert floor in the contrasting colours of the rock and even go as far as seeing silhouettes  of people.

Las Meninas

Foucalt's description and analysis of the Las Meninas was very interesting to me. It explained the composition of the painting thoroughly and it analyzed each element separately, but I found it lacking. Lacking in bringing those elements together and explaining it as a whole as it was meant to be, as it is presented to us by Velasquez. Foucault acknowledges the intricate play between the visible and the invisible, but makes little attempt at presenting his interpretation of these symbols and how they mesh together to form a coherent message. Maybe it is Foucault's view that this painting is merely an exploration into the subject of visibility, representation and the common factor light, and that it is devoid of any other message. This is an interesting view, but why choose to do this with such historically relevant people (i.e. the king and queen of Spain and Velasquez himself). Each person in this painting brings context to it and in my opinion form a story.

Value of Art

As someone who appreciates science and its use of logical explanations to describe and to make comprehensible the incomprehensible, I have to ask myself what is the value of art. What does it bring with it to the world that benefits society and helps it move forward? Is it not just an object bringing aesthetically pleasing images to our homes? What further use could it have then to appeal and be forgotten? And if it does have such an insignificant role then why is it the first means of communication that we developed (cave paintings). For what reason would Darwin's theory of evolution allow a task that "wastes" energy?

The only answer can be that the production of art is not something useless and that it in fact does influence and further the goals of society. But in what way then does art do this? It is something that appeals to me as it does with any other person. How does it surpass the many boundaries that separate society today and appeal to so many across every kind of barrier? The questions lead to more questions. It is hard to come up with answers to a subject that you know little about. But maybe what art does is outside the realm of today's science. Appealing to emotions or some other part of the brain of which we know little about. Or appealing to the curiosity of the unknown, much like the hours that can be spent staring into the night sky and being amazed at the complexity of our universe and how unfathomable it is. Many would refuse to believe it, but art may just be something only truly understood by its maker, The Artist.

Debris of an Automobile Giving Birth to a Blind Horse Biting a Telephone

This is a painting by Salvador Dali, a surrealist artist who is prominent in the history of art. This particular painting caught my eye not only because of the odd combination of objects (blind horse, telephone, radiator, and car wheel) but also because of the paint that was used. It had a metallic finish that shone and made this paining unique, the texture of the paint also caught my eye as it added real depth to the painting contrary to perceived depth, something an image from Google could do no justice. The shallow message that came to my naive mind was that this painting was showing the transformation of transport, from horse and carriages to automobile. That might explain the horse that appears to have a wheel for one of the fore legs and it also might explain the use of metallic paint, but what's left out are the truly intriguing symbols. Why is the horse painted with no eyes? Why does it hold a black telephone in its mouth? Why add a light bulb to the center of the painting? and Why would a radiator be important and an integral part of this message? And what I have just described is only  the description of the foreground ( the only part that I noticed). As I continued to stare at this puzzling, incomprehensible image in front of my eyes I noticed that the background contained other figures as well. It contained a scene of a farm in which stood a farmer and what looks to me like a centaur. This completely baffled me, why include a modern topic of automobiles (modern at those times) and contrast that by adding a background of a rural under developed area and a creature from Greek mythology.

In an effort to gain more context and the reason behind the painting I decided to do research on the painting. Not being one of his most famous works there was not much to be said about this painting by anyone, be it a commoner or an "elitist". Although I did find the reason behind the painting. Dali was not a big fan of Pablo Picasso's paintings and he did not hide this fact, this painting is a "riposte" (or in the English I know--An attack intended to hurt an opponent) against Picasso's famous painting Guernica. Guernica is known to be a famous symbol of peace as it showed the absolute destruction of the Spanish Civil War and alerted the rest of the world of the Spanish people's plight. It is not in my ability to understand this painting, at least not yet. Hopefully I will come to understand this painting albeit vaguely, an understanding that excludes the views of others who have had the chance to acquaint themselves with this painting long enough for them to come to terms with it.