Continuing discussions from Intro to Art. Observing Art & Ideas in our own day-to-day life and Applying in-class learning to the world around us.
Blog posts are due by midnight on Thursdays.
Chantyll Ellis November 8, 2012Mr. ElsayedArt: Midterm The set of photos I chose was Olmec Baby Figure 10th C BCE and Ron Meuck A Girl 2006. Starting off with Olmec baby, the sculpture is very small. Its features are considered “perfect” making the piece idealized but also at the same time, its features are so simplified that it could be stylized as well because the baby could be any body. There’s little to no details in the baby giving the impression that the Olmec believe in flaws when it came to their art. They wanted everything to basically be perfect. The Olmec Baby is in what I would call a natural position. Sitting up and smiling with its finger in their mouth. The baby gives off the impression of being happy and playing as well as being a few months old. Another observation I made is that the baby’s private parts aren’t even carved in. Further making the piece stylized because the baby could now be either male or female. On the other hand, Ron Meuck A Girl 2006 is scaled to size. The sculpture is enlarged greatly versus Olmec Baby that is so small. Another difference between the two is that Olmec Baby is very simplistic and idealized but Ron Meuck A Girl is very raw and fresh. The baby looks as if it just came out the womb and onto the little table the doctors would put them on to wash them and cut the umbilical cord. Between the blood still on its body and the awkward position it’s in. The face is pretty mean versus Olmec baby which looked happy. There’s a lot more a detail in A Girl, the baby’s face is full of wrinkles along with its scrounged up facial expression. Another distinction between the two is that A Girl has it’s body parts exposed and full view. The baby is very naturalistic and realistic. Versus Olmec baby that was more simplistic. A Girl has a lot of texture in its hair and in its skin, while Olmec Baby had none. It was as if it were a doll. There’s not alot of the similarities between Olmec Baby and A Girl is the obvious ones, they’re both sculpture and ones of baby’s. Not only that though, they both have the basic features that I typical baby would have (even though Olmec Baby doesn’t have private parts). Both have one a small basic color palette that they used to color their babies. Lastly they both have the same smooth looking texture of the baby’s skin. I definitely think that times matter and these two sculptures express that. Olmec Baby was created back in the 10th century and the Olmec’s were religious and possibly believe that babies were precious and perfect little creatures until life shaped their personalities so in the sculpture, the fact that they chose the make the baby so simple and “perfect” suggests that. Versus A Girl that was created in 2006, recent times. These days we’re really into organic and like seeing things fresh and naturally done in its raw natural form. An example would be like our food, the company we choose to buy from and companies we want to invest in. What’s more natural and raw than seeing a brand new baby fresh out the womb? That’s what I think the artist was going for when they created this piece. In the older work I have an idea of its meaning and what it’s trying to say but for me it’s easier to suggest why a piece was created in more recent times, since I’m more familiar with it. With that being said, future people would probably feel the same way about our work versus their work in their time periods. Art will always have the basic elements and principals but how it’s perceived and viewed will always be different especially when it’s during a totally different time period.
The firs art work Olmec “Baby” Figure 10th C BCE is in the form of a 3D sculpture. The negative space is the gray background. This sculpture value is relatively light do to possible implied light. The color of this sculpture is monochromatically light beige. The texture of this sculpture seems to be hard cement with cracks all over giving it a rougher look. The sculpture seems to have a normal scale and has proportion. The rule of space is also being used; sculpture is set in an entrusting angle. I believe the image of the art work is idealized because it looks like a statue of ideology in a type of religion. This also resembles the religious statue of Buddha. But judging from the year around the time it was made it could have been realistic but compared to this day and age this style is more idealized. The face of the sculpture seems to have been made to look like what they believe perfection is. The weird part about it is there’s nothing perfect about the image. For example the baby is missing a leg and also has cracks running all through it. My objective thought of this sculpture is of course the image of life, new life. I also think it has something to do with losing something due to the missing foot. It’s like the baby just received life and already lost a part of his/her body. In the second image (Ron Meuck A Girl, 2006), there’s a 3D sculpture of an organic shape, new born baby. The negative space is the white background and lady standing beside it. The baby has realistic light skin color with brown hair and a little amount of red blood on the body. The visual implied texture is soft and wet. The baby is proportionate but due to the comparison of the lady standing next to it, the image has a large scale. The rule of space is also implied. Minus the size the baby looks realistic. You can see blood still on the baby wrinkles on the forehead, puffy eyes, and piece of umbilical cord. My objective thought on this piece is life and the artist made it large so you’re able to see every detail of the new born baby, things that normally we as people wouldn’t pay attention to. With this large image you have no choice but to. And that is when you’re able to see the true beauty of the smaller thing in life. Olmec “Baby” figure compared to Ron Meuck A girl is more religious. The Olmec image sends out the message of power while Ron M is more sentimental. The reason that is, is because Ron M’s piece is more relatable not only to this day and age but also because as a human we have flaws. The texture (visual implied) has a softer touchable look. While the Olmec looks fragile and as if it cost a lot so I would be very careful getting close. With the Olmec I have sense of respect for it because it’s historical and you get to see the way they decided to portray a baby back then vs. how Ron portrays A baby now. I believe the time the art work was made does affect reading of the work. Since we don’t have automatic knowledge of what was going on at that time the clues left behind will sometimes be
Walison CompresMidterm Essay As time passes art evolves. Art is a clear representation of the culture and beliefs of the people at the time. Art evolves as people do. Over the past few months I have studied the different formal elements and compositional principles that artist incorporate in their work. I have learned that over time the style of art as a whole changes. Two clear examples of this are; Ron Meuck’s “A girl” from 2006 and the Olmec “Baby” figure from 10th C BCE. Both of these works share the same topic of interest but yet they are so different.The Olmec “Baby” figure from 10th C BCE is a porcelain sculpture of a child. This style of sculpture is stylized; it is very simple and generic. The sculpture has no reproductive organs so the viewer can’t tell the sex of the child, one could assume it is a female but it has no hair or features that portray either sex. The artist does not use color in order to provide the viewer with a realistic perception. But the artist does utilize the shape along with the position the baby is in to give the viewer content. It is simply what it seems to be, a baby.Ron Meuck’s “A girl” from 2006 is also a sculpture of a child. The style of the sculpture is realistic because it is a clear representation of the human form. It is extremely detailed and the artist utilizes everything from color to texture to enhance the features of the baby and make the sculpture seem natural. Scale is very important in this work because the sculpture is very massive in size but yet so realistic because of the angle it is in. The viewer must look down in order to see it just as they would if they saw a real childThere are many similarities and differences between Ron Meuck’s “ A girl” sculpture and the Olmec “baby” sculpture. They are both sculptures that share the same topic of interest, a baby. Both artist do a great job of portraying a clear perception of a child. Both incorporating formal elements and compositional principles in their work. They also have many differences; one major difference in these works is the use of scale. Meuck’s sculpture was massive in size while the Olmec “Baby” sculpture is the size of a real child. Meuck utilizes color to provide realistic sense while in the Olmec “Baby” there was no use of color. Another difference is that Meuck’s figure is clearly a girl in comparison to the Olmec “Baby” figure whose sex is unknown. There is also a difference in the ages of the babies. The Olmec “baby” appears to be a year old or so while Ron Meuck’s “A girl” is just a newborn.I feel that time definitely affects the reading of a work. As time passes peoples frame of thought changes too. The way we see a piece of art may not be the same way a person who was around when they created it sees it. Some ideas that are adopted into our society today were unheard of and or obscene fifty years ago. We can understand older work but it is a bit trickier because the viewer may have to think back or research how things were at the time. As opposed to a new piece of art which we can easily relate to because we understand the artists ideas and thoughts because we know what is currently going on in the world. In the future when people look at art that is being created now they will look at it the same way we view older works now. They would have to research it in order to get a better understanding because they didn’t live through the ideas being expressed in the art. I feel that the evolution of art is a positive thing because as time passes it can only get better.
Diego LoaizaThese two art works are 3d since they are sculptures. We are able to see the front, back and the sides of the figures. One of them is made in a small size, “Baby”. The other one is made in a huge scale, “A Girl”. Both of them are representing a baby both of them are different. The time when these two figures were created make a huge difference between them. Olmec figure is abstract and Ron figure is more realistic.Olmec figure made on the 10th C BCE show us a naked baby with a chubby body. This is a ceramic sculpture. We recognize that it is a baby but he doesn’t give us many details. Since this is an abstract figure, it is not exactly as a real baby. The baby is using helmet and its face is very detailed. The baby is bringing his right hand to his mouth. The baby has elongated eyes. His face and his eyes show that the baby is loo*ing up. This tells us that the baby is under control of someone superior to the baby. The baby has less power. This sculpture is made in small size. Olmec figures are about 11 to 14 in high. It is missing a leg as some other Olmec figures. Subjectively I will say that the reason why he didn’t put genitals in this sculpture was because in that time wouldn’t be accepted by people observe a piece of art showing his or her genitals. Very different to the Sculpture made by Ron “A Girl” which is so real and it clearly show a new-born baby girl. “A Girl” is a huge sculpture made by Ron Meuck. It was created in 2006. This is a baby in a bigger scale. Ron uses materials such as silicon and fiberglass to make the sculpture closer to a real human. This sculpture is more realistic than Olmec figure. It is so realistic than you can see the blood exactly like in a new born baby. It even has the umbilical cord. Her eyes barely open. Her mouth is tightly close. We are able to see her fragile arms and legs. The baby has a lot of hair like in some cases in a real new born baby. Ron used a lot of actual texture, like the blood, the hair. When you see the baby for first time it brings you a lot of emotions inside. It is that big and realistic that it even scare you for a moment especially in the first you are time looking at it. In my opinion this sculpture is more realistic since it is made in twenty century Ron was able to show every single detail in the baby girl. If some people have the privilege to see a new born baby will see that this piece of art Ron did not skip any detail. Personally this work brought me memories about my two baby girls since I had the opportunity to see them when they came to this word. I think this is the message Ron wants to transmit through this art, memories. As we can see these arts are very different. Even though both arts are about babies and both are naked only “A Girl” tells us her gender. In Olmec baby figure doesn’t tell us if it is a boy or girl because doesn’t show its genitals. In contrary in “A Girl” sculpture her genitals are very detail. It is a baby girl. I think that the most important reason why these two figures are different to each other is because of the era that it is made. Both arts are amazing. We see that time has an important role in art pieces so we have to be patient because there is interesting pieces of arts coming in the future. I can even imagine what would be the next art generation.
Art has been around us for over 100,000 years, as time passed by art slowly change form, from the old days of two dimensional painting inside caves to regular painting of people, then to three dimensional sculpture, now in today’s world we have four dimensional videos. All those different arts have a meaning within the painting. When a regular person looks at art is very different from an artist, they look at how colorful and beautiful each art looks, but when an artist looks at an art, we try to figure out the component the creator of the art used, such as elements, principles and content of the painting. The two sculptures I selected to discuss is the Olmec “Baby” figure 10th C BCE and Ron Meuck a Girl, 2006. The two sculptures have multiple similarities; the first one is focal points, when you look at both sculptures your eyes are on the baby. The second one is color, both the artists used monochromatic, which only show us one color for the sculpture. The third one is representational, the artist try to make their sculpture resemble real life baby, the two sculpture shows baby have eyes, nose, mouth and a full body structure, all in which a real baby have. Even though there are a lot of similarities, there are also some differences between the two sculptures. The first difference is the angle in which the baby is looking at us; the Olmec “Baby’ figure shows an above angle, which shows me that the baby is less powerful. The Ron Meuck a girl has an angle of eye level; it shows a neutral positioning with the audience. The second difference is the scale of the sculpture, the Olmec “Baby” figure is an average size baby, but the Ron Meuck a Girl shows a baby is bigger than a real life size baby. I believe the biggest difference is the materials the artist used to create the sculpture, the Olmec “Baby” figure probably used stone to create a baby figure, as for Ron Meuck a Girl, I don’t know what materials the artist used, but whatever materials the artist used have made the sculpture just like a real life baby.
An artist does not simply only look at the component of a sculpture, but they also have to describe the content of the art. They try to find the meaning of the sculpture and what message the artist trying to show us. As I look at both sculptures, I believe they have the same content, in both sculptures the artists show us the babies are in pain. The first one Olmec “Baby” figure shows a baby lost an leg, when you have a leg missing you will be in pain. The second sculpture Ron Meuck a Girl, the artist shows us a baby with blood in her face and body, which can also suggest that the baby is in pain. An aspect that can change the reading on the art is time. For Ron Meuck a Girl, since it’s so close to present day, it didn’t change much how I read the sculpture, but as for Olmec “Baby” figure, I believe time has change the work, the sculpture have been around for over thousands of years, it’s slowly getting destroy by people, maybe when it first created, the baby have both legs, because of thousands of years, one of the leg was broken during this time, then the content we look at the sculpture will change too. Olmec “Baby” figure is so old that I don’t understand the information at all because I do not know the history during 10th C BCE; maybe a historian might have better understanding of the sculpture, because they study the time zone. Even for the newer sculpture Ron Meuck a Girl, we can understand it because the sculpture was made present, but 50 years in to future, people is going to look at the sculpture differently, they probably wondering why the baby is so big comparing to other baby. As a person looking at an art, we can’t just look at the components an artist used, we have to look for content within the art, but people will have different viewpoint on the same art. For example the two sculpture I used, to me the artist try to show us the baby are in pain, but when another person look at those sculptures, they will have different opinion as me, it does not means one of us is wrong, it simply implies that our opinion on the content of the art is different from each other.