First off I am not really “good” at drawing but am proud that I could figure out the anatomy of the body. I think got the idea of the male figure close enough but it still needs proper proportions.
The first problem that I had to over come was finding where to start for portions. The length of the torso did not mach well with the rest of the body because I had started on the shoulders first and the rest of the body sort of didn’t fit into the structure and made the legs way too small and arms too short
The second one I had started on the chest down so it could better manage the portions to scale but it had issues with drawing the legs and arms. The thighs are some how small than the legs and it looks weird the top haft seem fine but i couldn’t get the muscles to look quite right.
So I tried again with a bigger scale and it work pretty well. it fix my focus on the overall structure of the body but I still suck at drawing hands and feet so it still a failure
last one is really the better one where I learn more about curvature of lines than trying to correct them get the lines in one go or redo it because it makes it clearer. Final thoughts would be that I’ll keep drawing for a while see if i improve
Gerard David (Netherlandish, Oudewater ca. 1455–1523 Bruges) 1506
Said to be view from below to give the focus to more ethereal concepts. Being from the Renaissance it has a center of focus. it rely on the given information of the time to convey the center ideas considering that these pieces are multi-storied polyptych they are concept dedicated to each frame to tell a story throughtout
Guercino (Giovanni Francesco Barbieri) (Italian, Cento 1591–1666 Bologna)
This painting is from the Biblical book of Judges. Delilah, and is set upon by the Philistines, who bind him and blind him. Baroque art is more angled some more extreme than others this piece is angle diagonally to the right side. it work with the style of the time period to enhance the overall motion that the piece its trying to convey being tugged to the left side.
The concepts of statues was the first thing I think we learned. The value of the caving of concepts before the “gods”. The statues where small and had values either extrinsic to their life style or the sense of fear the the gods might smite them out of not being worshiped. while others become more tuned to their
As time moved on the statues became larger and had more defined religious and cultural definition. The Egyptians and the Mesopotamian art was had a stronger focus on the spiritual deity in their cultures. The Mesopotamian statues where huge with beast like structures and a human head which was believed to be a deity that protected the structure within. While The Egyptians had the belief of the gods as a form of judgment on them and their culture surrounded the idea of dead and embalming creating statue that fit the surrounding terrain more than any thing else really. The Idea of a pharaoh and a orderly form of servants and people with relation to the gods was the main focus of creating monoliths specific to their culture. Building the pyramid as tomb and the temple around it showed the dedication to their belief. As shown the god of death Anubis is a man with a jackal head judging the peoples heart before he allows them to past.
The Greeks and the Romans define their art to be more human creating marble statues that celebrates the human body “kouros” . The added humanism and color to the figure
The Greeks that slowly moved from the ideal more symmetric structure of a ideal athletic figure to more of a organic human structure that has more of a curve and more realistic facial features. While still being faithful to their religion they portray their gods in marble to re enforce the concepts of their culture as people and how they also take advantages to the usage of the materiel to carve more intricate ideas into the statue it self
Temples where built using the concepts of math and advancements they had found and is also apart of what made the art pop out while being efficient at lowering the weight of the walls.
As they may still build as time moves on the statues are upgraded to being hollow cast in bronze and as time moved further on the fallout of the once beautiful art be came muddied over time and less persevered of the original intentions.
the thing that ties most of the art together would be the usage of color to show what their civilization has mastered and how it complements the art it self
Humanism define reflects the ideas of people by sculpting of human figures. During a time of change from the focus from gods like deities to the more tangible body structure of the human body. The Greek and Romans ideology of the person and the idea that piece was to convey. compared to the Mesopotamian & Egyptian art.
Mesopotamian sculpture shows a mythical creature with the body of a bull/lion, bird wings and a human. This was mainly a piece that shows a sort of divine protection for royalty and a ode to their gods. Mainly putting this piece art at entrances to “protect” an estate.
Anubis was the god of embalming and the dead. Since jackals were often seen in cemeteries, Egyptians believed that Anubis watched over the dead thus this representation of a godlike being that watch over them. even retaining a human body the jackal head shows more of mythical being the people should fear compared to how jackals are hunters.
Greek and Romans art was most human like. They celebrated the human body and sports that resonated with their ideology during a period of time. Though the sculptures would slowly become more of a personal human idea they still had their gods and a representation of a more perfect body sculpted in marble/bronze and colored , which I can make a connection to the Egyptian pharaoh sculptures. the roman and the Greek being able to use bronze to cast these statues where better suited for these extreme poses and more “advance to be able to make these.
I thought it was really peaceful to walk around the museum and being in one after so long is kinda nice to be able to explore alone and take in the scale of the statues and art pieces.
For the ancient Egyptian part of the project I choose was the Statue of a priest of Amun. what poked my interested was that it was made from diorite not from sand stone, and the details they had to carve into the head structure. The dimension are a bit bigger than what it should be used for thus breaking due to its weight and the brittleness at that scale.The art piece presents the importance of a priest in relation to their Gods which explains the use of the material. On the back side there are hieroglyphics with supposedly the value of the piece or a verse to keep track of hat the statue mean. My question for the statue would be where it would it be placed for all sides to be visible. I would assume there would be like an alter in a center hall for people to view it from all sides
For the soul of a Nation I choose “Did the bear sit next to the tree” by Benny Andrews. the use of solid materials was the thing that allowed some of the ideas to pop out like the flag the should represent freedom for all is being rolled up and how the painted structure of the figure had real cloth and depict this solid object is fighting the American system. Also including the zipper used as a metaphor placing it as a mouth piece and how well it tie together with the themes. the painting was the weakest part and I thought it was to give more color and depth to it.
In Unit 1, I learned about Freire’s “banking model”. The banking model is an idea of how education and the oppression that the education system/teachers pushes on the new students soaking up what is told. It a concept were I can see it being applied in modern education system and is a useful term to have if I every need to cite about a school related subject. I think that the system now reflects how our education system doesn’t work with a newer generation of people.
Formal analysis is analyzing a art piece and trying to identify the subject matter that the artist is trying to convey under the given context. Examining the details to bringing out a better sense of depth through the hues, line work, composition, strokes to make the art work. We analysis theses subtle difference to express the art works
I can’t help that I feel like I am restating what already been said in my other slides so try to rewrite this differently is a challenge. recap is this useful sort of I think I can use it for another school project or as a basis for a claim in the future.
Formal Analysis is how people contextualize the ideas, themes, and purpose of The given art. In formal analysis we study and compare color, line work, space and mass, and scale to break down the piece to get a basic idea of what the art wants to portray. Color attributes to how different hues, shades and the saturation of a piece. This works with the composition with space, mass and lines; different spots are highlighted to focus an object or and action creating a contrast. Lines give a better silhouette playing with the light and dark. Scale maintains the proportion and visually presents the most dominance.
Contextual analysis is to define the meaning of the art by inspecting the surrounding history of it, the reason it was made. Since formal analysis and contextual analysis are inseparable we must study both to interpret the full meaning to the art. People usually try to contextualize it themselves and due to different bias can come to different conclusions.
In The Pedagogy of the Oppressed Paulo Freire the explains the banking model as the current system of education and the specifize the relationship between the teachers and the students. According to Freire the teacher fills the head of their students with ideas detaching from development of themselves, the problem the students have is never reach full understanding the knowledge because of the lack of context or they don’t have any reason to apply it to anything to appreciate its full value. Freire believes this turns students into better explain as “storage units” while the teachers are the depositing knowledge into, explaining the banking model title. Freire states this is a misguided system of education, where teachers are the oppressors and the students are the oppressed. This model of education greatly empowers the teacher and disempowers the student. Paulo Freire want to change how student can be taught by coming to their own conclusion when presented a problem. He wants management of both.
In my daily education I can see the effect of how a teacher can become unintentional a oppressor. It is an odd feeling when the knowledge given isn’t as rewarding when you find it on your own. Granted that there are some of the students and I have seen quite a lot of never approach the issue critically and never get pass. We can be given the tools to work on problems but if the teacher doesn’t exercise the students capacity to develop it becomes a problem. In math and science we can rationalize this knowledge to everyday life but it’s never useful if your profession doesn’t require it. There were cases when the students and the teachers are so disconnected that the majority of the class failed to grasp it because he wasn’t push for it, the lack of interest from students was also a problem. From the ages of 10 to 18 how the hell are people supposed to care, When the internet is a thing. Overall I think that as chaotic as people in american society they can figure out on their own.
Q: don’t teachers have to go to teaching school? ….. Oh no!
1.Go to https://commons.gc.cuny.edu/
3.On the top right side (your icon) under my sites
There should be Fall 2018 Art 1010 at Brooklyn College, click it
4.On the top dashboard under + New click post
5.Add your title and text
6.if necessary save draft is on the right
7.when finished scroll down to categories
locate your time and then publish