Malevich: A completely unjust comparison of his drawings to mine.

As we transitioned from Post-Impressionist works into abstract works, Kasey and I discovered we had much less to talk about when observing the pieces. Our trip to the Tate Modern was eye opening as we tried to tie together what we’d previously learned in class with the new questions we were meant to keep in mind. Both of us still unsure of what to talk about, I decided to make this post about Malevich, who I myself am not a great fan of; however found myself to be interested in seeing his drawings in the later rooms of the exhibition. I am a drawer myself, hence my interest in comparing his usage of pencil to mine (not that I am in any way comparable to him or his talent…)

My art, being in no way abstract but rather realistic, does feature shading executed in a similar way. His drawings: extremely abstract. They feature shapes, unknown objects and extreme contrast between light and dark accents. Malevich’s drawings allow the viewer to think about the meaning behind the piece and question its effect. Although his drawings often seem childish, some exceed detail most artists may find utterly impossible. They incorporate aspects of architecture and geometry as well as people, generally undetailed figures resembling mannequins.

In comparison to my art, one of the overarching similarities is the use of simplistic black and white and often size. My pieces vary in size, from being extremely large to simple notebook sized pages. Usually, if I choose to use only pencils for my drawings, these will be executed on notebook-sized papers. As for the drawings I choose to use charcoal or chalk, these are usually done on large scale. I also have a love for straight lines and clean drawings, which Malevich has depicted throughout his years as an artist. The comparisons pretty much end there however. Aside from my utter lack of talent in comparison to Malevich, his works address different audiences and have more abstract approaches.

Here are a few of his pieces I thoroughly enjoy, as well as some of my pieces I used to compare to his drawings.

 

-Charlotte

Abstract Art: Why do we keep looking at it?

Why do we keep looking at abstract art? This is the question Charlotte and I tried to answer at the Tate Modern a few weeks ago. What is it? And why is it so interesting? Abstract art is using shape, form and color to create a piece in a way that is unrecognizable to the eye. It uses visual language to depict an illusion of reality. Abstract art makes little to no sense to the viewer, so it draws you to make your own conclusions about the work. Most of the abstract art I saw at the Tate Modern I didn’t understand, therefore didn’t really like, but there were pieces I found beautiful.

There was one painting by Robert Delaunay called Endless Rhythm that I found myself looking for a long time. Delaunay and his wife Sonia both painted abstract art that focused primarily on color. They loved to experiment with how different colors acted together, which colors contrasted the most to work the best next to each other. Endless Rhythm really displays this. Unlike most of the other works which just seemed like color was thrown on (even though nothing an artist does is unintentional), this one seemed very formatted and simple, yet complex. The work consists of several circles intertwined, in a seemingly perfectly symmetrical pattern. Each circle crossed in a smooth flowing pattern, except one that interrupted the rhythm. This painting has so many elements that seem to be perfect, that go along with the rhythm your eye follows, but then you see a small flaw. For example, along with a line that intersected another, the bottom part of the bottom circle is cut off, completely throwing off the rhythm. Your eye naturally follows the circles around and down to the bottom, but then it is cut off abruptly. The colors have flaws as well. They are so contrasting, with dark blacks and bright whites, and deep reds and oranges. The small circles in the middle alternate half white and half gray, but there is one circle in the middle that doesn’t alternate and throws off the pattern. What I like so much about this painting is the flaws. At first, this painting appears so perfect, but it really isn’t, because is anything ever truly perfect? Amidst a bunch of pieces that made no sense to me, like a wooden stand with a metal plate on top that was supposed to be a fish, this one spoke to me clearly. Abstract art can be interpreted differently by everyone who sees it, I experienced this as my whole class discussed this piece. Some people resonate with some pieces, while some find it completely uninteresting. Endless Rhythm had a beautiful and complex pattern that I couldn’t stop looking at.

-Kasey & Charlotte

Dali and Surrealism

Last week, Charlotte and I went to the Tate Modern and focused on Dadaism and Surrealism. Dadaism was an anti-war art movement during World War I in Zurich. They wanted to abandon all traditional values of art, creating a new idea of art and questioning every aspect of society. Dadaism created the basis for Surrealism, which first developed in Paris then spread internationally. Surrealism was also heavily influenced by the psychoanalysis ideas of Sigmund Freud. The Surrealist’s aimed to reveal the unconscious in their works, making them appear dream like to the viewer. The Surrealists produced works that gave insight into their minds and inner thoughts.

One Surrealist who struck me, and caught the attention of the world, was Spanish painter Salvador Dali. Dali is arguably the most famous Surrealist, whose works are known all over the world, and whose ideas spread to film and architecture in the mid-1900’s. Dali is an interesting and complex man, whose intense paintings deal with death and sexual desires. His works are like any other artists I’ve seen so strange, yet so compelling that you could look at them for hours discovering new aspects and thoughts they provoke.

I took a particular interest in one of his paintings called Metamorphosis of Narcissus. This is one painting that you certainly can spend an hour looking at. Initially, I looked at this painting and didn’t like it at all. It confused and overwhelmed me. As you look closer at it, you see the details of the aspects that make it all work together, and make the painting interesting. The most dominating figures in the painting, that your eye is drawn to first, are a big structure of a hand holding an egg sprouting a flower, and a woman kneeling on with her arm resting on her knee. These two figures are dominating because they are bigger than anything else in the painting and they are mirror images of each other. Dali has a characteristics of putting double images into his paintings, to keep the viewer thinking and seeing different things. A large interest of Freud’s psychoanalysis was the idea of how the mind works and interprets the world around it. Different people see things differently, and Dali’s works play with that. When you look beyond these two captivating figures, you notice in the background strange elements that don’t add up. There is a large checker board, oddly shaped naked men and woman, and a dog eating a bloody carcass. None of the elements of this painting work together or even have any relation to each other, yet there are specific reasons why Dali deliberately put them together. This painting invites you into to Dali’s mind, forcing you to question what he was thinking while he painted this. This painting, like all Surrealist pieces, give you insight to the unconscious thoughts of the painter, but also make you reflect on your own ideas as it forces you to make sense of something so seemingly senseless.

-Kasey & Charlotte