Lecture 3.2

On Wednesday (February 2nd, 2011) we went through a semester's worth of art history in about an hour. I realized that in a way it was really cool way to find out which artists really stuck out to me during the speedy process. The lecture began with the question, "What is art?". I was curious to hear what Professor Zucman's answer would be. I'll admit I expected an elementary type answer such as, "Art is anything you want it to be." It was refreshing to hear that there were actual definitions, but definitely more than one. One definition that Professor Zucman mentioned  is that something is considered art if it is worked by the human hand. I thought that was a very interesting statement because for example what if someone's dog came in contact with something like paint and paper and created something that looks like art to the human eye. That particular definition makes sense because its a far stretched example that I mentioned, but a dog can't be consciously aware that they are creating art. Only humans have that gift of awareness.


As Professor Zucman continued to talk about art from three million years ago with the Australopithecus era up until the middle ages, the next thing that stood out to me was Gothic art and architecture from the middle ages. I sort of wished the lecture was entirely on Gothic art because I found it a bit appealing. Professor Z then showed us the Chartes Cathedral in France. Before we enter the cathedral, I want to mention how amazing the architecture is from the outside. I mean when I see such a magnificent structure it gives me this sense of darkness and it

 reminds me of movies about vampires and things of that nature. A building like that exudes the fact that it has a lot of history in its walls.
Inside the Cathedral, you could find the rose windows and I like that Professor Z compared it to today's Imax theaters. I understood that comparison right away because I believe standing in front of those windows would be a complete mind f*ck.  I love the detailing in the windows and again, the architecture. Everything about the rose windows looks mathematically correct and very organized.  Although its a cathedral, there's something very dark about the art and I think that's what makes it goth. It's not about the "light" side of life, but its very grand in my opinion.

There was a lot to take in as the lecture went on. We came across the Renaissance artists, through the Baroque era, all the way to the Enlightenment, and to the present. The thing about art that's cool is that all throughout this history, different artists from different times had the same ambitions and sometimes even created similar pieces. One pattern that I noticed was that artists that are closer to the present were sort of updating the styles of those who came before them.

In the second part of lecture, our focus was turned on the artist Jackson Pollock. Although I don't think his art is that special, I think him the artist is. Earlier in lecture Professor Z had mentioned what can fuel someone to do art. I think that Ed Harris (director of the film Jackson Pollock) was definitely fueled to make the film about Pollock. He was fueled to create his own art piece about Pollock. I thought it was cool that after I made that connection, Harris mentioned in a interview that he just wanted the film to work as a film, "just like you would look at a painting" and say does this work? Another very interesting thing that Harris mentioned in the interview was that when Pollock was painting he was simply just "doing it", and purely creating. Harris mentioned that this was a good thing until Pollock's work got recognized because he then had to explain his art and why he was doing it. This is what eventually brought Pollock to stop doing art.

Most people would probably do anything to get their work recognized. We've all heard about the starving artist who is waiting for their break. I understand why Pollock probably couldn't adjust to being noticed. He was doing something for himself and  like Curt V. mentioned in the film, "the studio became where he had the control he didn't have anywhere else."  Unlike the typical starving artist, Pollock's break was probably every time he painted. To me it seemed that painting for him was a very emotional thing and it was his way of releasing. I was reminded of myself because I do art for fun and every time I'm done with a piece, I feel at ease and proud of myself for creating something beautiful or ugly even.

I also noticed that Pollock may have been a dedicated smoker. Maybe some of his work was influenced by his cigarettes. The lines in most of his paintings resemble the streaks of smoke that come out of a cigarette. Just a thought.