Is the work of controversial modern artists such as Damien Hirst and Tracy Emin really art, or is it merely a glorified science project and household object??
The world of art took a massive shake up in 1917 when French artist Marcel Duchamp submitted his piece 'Fountain' to an art gallery. The piece was merely a gentlemans urinal signed by the artist. After numerous attacks (I think the original piece was destroyed and replaced several times), the art world eventually began to accept this new form of art.
But now it seems that the previously 'limitless world of art' is truly 'limitless'. I suspect that the likes of Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Caravaggio would be turning in their graves if they could see the works being mass produced on an almost daily basis by contemporary artists such as Damien Hirst, Tracy Emin and Grayson Perry to name but a few.
I have no doubt that the work takes effort and imagination- two of the fundamental requirements of art, but the pieces just don't have that awe inspiring feel. I mean, when looking at a piece by Damien Hirst I wasn't inspired as I was when staring at the thick layered brush strokes of Van Gogh. They just aren't the same.
I find it difficult to consider an animal suspended in a box of Formaldehyde (the physical impossibility of death in the mind of someone living) to be a work of art. It teaches us nothing about the way we live our lives, or how the artist was feeling when he produced the pice.
I can say with confidence that Van Gogh was very depressed when he painted the majority of his paintings, and a more specific example would be Edvard Munch's 'Scream' which would suggest that the artist was confused, depressed and isolated. How do I know this??? Not from accounts from the time, but from the aggression in the brush strokes, the lack of detail in te scenery, the vivd or depressive colours which dominate the canvas.
What does Tracy Emin's piece 'Everyone I've ever slept with' tell us about the artist?? Well for starters I suppose it tells us she couldn't find a cheaper 2-man tent, and that her sewing isn't too bad. There is no expression or aggression involved.
Another point about modern art which annoys me is the idea of having a team of assistants. Damien Hirst has even admitted that he sees much of his art as a 'brand produced in a factory.' Damien Hirst has teams of assistants working on his pieces everyday, but I'll wager that he probably doesn't touch them except to sign them when they're done.
There are some refreshing pieces steadily breaking through however- artists such as Anish Kapoor and Anthony Gormley being the most well known of these. They both produce works that outshine many contemporary artists. Kapoor has inspired me with the awesome scale of some of his pieces, and the vivid colour range of his pieces shows that he is enthralled in his work. Gormley has captured the nation with more famous pieces such as the 'Angel of the North' (albeit 30 years ago) showing his passion and obsession with the human form, he has explored the body by reproducing it's form in different mediums. One controversial contemporary artist who I do find interesting however, is Grayson Perry. His pieces are intriguing and do show expression and emotion, and tell the tale of his younger life- the bullying and his own pain over sexuality. Essentially, expression and emotion are the axiological and most crucial properties of any true work of art.
A final point which always captured my curiosity was the lack of wealth in art. Some of the biggest names going- Van Gogh, Pollock, Caravaggio and Vermeer to name but a few, all had very little money and yet they used what they had to create such exquisite works of art, putting into them not only their money and time, but their passion and love for creativity. Nowadays however, artists have almost unlimited funding, materials and assistants to do their work for them. This leads me to believe that very few modern artists actually put their energy, charisma and emotion into their works, and thus they are less powerful.
Ultimately, I'll be the first critic to say 'It's up to you to decide where you stand in this argument,' but I know I'm on the side of Picasso and Van Gogh.
Tuesday 27 September 2011
To What Extent Did Wassily Kandinsky Contribute to Modern Art?
Russian abstract artist Wassily Kandinsky was fairly successful during the first half of the 20th Century. His works inspired many in the Modern Art world, and he became a highly successful teacher at Germany's Bauhaus Institute.
How much did Wassily Kandinsky contribute to modern art?
Wassily Kandinsky (1866-1944) is credited with being one of the major pioneers of the abstract movement, producing an array of vibrant colourful pieces in his peak. His fluctuation from figurative landscape painter in his early career to modernist master has served as an inspiration to many other artists worldwide. In this study, I will endeavour to focus on analysing Kandinsky’s change from representational pieces to pure abstraction, making sure I get a taste of the variety in his art.
Each of Wassily Kandinsky’s later paintings are unique, not only from other artists, but also from his own earlier pieces. His ability to implement fauvism into his early works whilst maintaining a look of realism was crucial to his initial success.
In 1896 Kandinsky attended the Academy for Fine Arts in Munich. Many of his early paintings show the influence of Fauvism. They are bold, very colourful paintings painted with typical fauve brushwork- strong and deliberately crude. The paint is often thick and applied with power and energy. The subjects were usually landscape, although he did complete some portraits and woodcuts. This fauvist trend ended roughly around 1914, when Kandinsky stopped painting completely figurative works.
Fauvism is an art movement mainly associated with French artist Herni Matisse. The term Fauvism refers to the use of vivid and often outrageous colour tones. Because Matisse was at his best in the early 1900’s, it is conceivable that these two artists would’ve seen each other’s work. Kandinsky was probably influenced by Matisse’s work.
Wassily altered his artwork as much as his associated movements, and was a member of several small art movements throughout his life. Der Blaue Reiter is a movement Kandinsky started, along with fellow artist Franz Marc, amongst others. The movement focussed on the expression of spiritual truths through art. The name was derived from one of Kandinsky’s early figurative paintings of the same name.
Kandinsky inspired a generation of painters such as Hans Hoffman and Jackson Pollock.
‘Der Blaue Reiter’ (1903) is one of Kandinsky’s most recognised figurative pieces. In English, it is ‘The Blue Rider’, which is shown in its content. The first thing to hit the viewer is the thick brush strokes, which, coupled with vivid fauvist style colours overwhelms the audience. Its powerful feeling of aggression from the brush strokes is confidently mixed with an atmosphere of peace from the calm light blue sky. An important note to make here in relation to the use of the colour blue is as to its spiritual status. It was the belief of those in the Blaue Reiter movement that blue is symbolic of spirituality: the darkest shades supposedly awakening the human desire for the eternal. After realising the connection of the group and the colour, I have since realised that the painting has a lot more blue in it, if not subtle enough to go unnoticed at first sight. The contrast between the blue rider and the white steed is the main focus of the painting, though the bright greens of the field overwhelm this and undoubtedly dominate the canvas. Kandinsky uses contrast heavily in this piece as with the dark blue enveloping the tree line and the light blue sky. The rider and his horse appear to be frozen, though the brush strokes supply the canvas with a sense of movement, allowing the foliage in the background to retain their natural look.
The thickness of the oil paint Kandinsky uses as his medium enhances this surreal experience. Oil was undoubtedly his favourite medium, as it was easy to control and gives the paintings several layers and tones.
Kandinsky has tried to make every inch of this painting interesting, with his use of bright eye catching colours. However, the green space around the rider has a negative effect on me, because of its daunting shade of colour. The spread of green space around the rider doesn’t fit with the rest of the composition.
Overall, I like this piece because of its dramatic change in style from the works of the time. The rough thick texture and use of vivid colours is brought together by the short, violent brush strokes. The mood of the painting differs from others by him, and was probably an experimental work. Though the colour and shapes relate to his previous pieces.
The movement Der Blaue Reiter lasted only 4 years, before being split apart by the First World War. This was a pivotal point in Kandinsky’s life, as his prompt return to Russia saw a huge alteration to his style of painting. No doubt due to the political upheaval experienced in Russia, as well as the development and revolution of communism, his work drastically changed.
This change was to have a profound impact on the history of modern art. Kandinksy, a previously talented, but relatively unknown painter, was to become a father figure to a large number of artists who were to be inspired by his significant and dramatic developments.
By 1913-14, Kandinsky is said to have achieved pure abstraction in his paintings.
The paintings from this period are not the ‘Compositions’, but rather ‘improvisations’. The difference is huge. Improvisations have very few recognisable shapes, lighter colour tones, and much more visible brush strokes.
This piece (Improvisation, 1914) was painted during Kandinsky’s ‘pure abstraction’ period, and this is immediately obvious. The painting stands out to be due to its tidal wave of colour. Though the colour tones are far less exaggerated than his fauvist like tones in previous works.
By now, Kandinsky has moved away from the purely representational paintings, although he does return to them for a short period in 1916 with paintings such as ‘Moscow I’ and ‘Moscow. Smolensky Boulevard. Study’. This was probably an attempt to fit in with the art of his home country, as he had just returned from Western Europe due to the outbreak of the First World War.
In terms of this piece, the composition is quite different to his later works. The pieces don’t feel like they fit together whereas later works such as Composition VIII piece together like a puzzle. The colourful pieces of this puzzle however, give a very dissimilar viewpoint. Kandinsky has not used traditional shapes to create this; instead he uses a variety of brush strokes. The wide strokes of impasto are vaguely recognisable in the top right corner of the canvas.
This example actually extends to the entire top third of the canvas, and was probably used as an antithesis to the thinner swift brush strokes of the bottom section. Similarly, the shapes in the bottom third slightly resemble those we know well, in contrast to the spread of chaotic colour mixing above.
The faint curves in the centre engulf the focus point, which is reminiscent of fruit, because of the colour scheme used. I like the fact that when I look at the painting I immediately look for something, anything representative. My eyes search the image frantically and uncontrollably, in search for a conventional shape or symbol. This is supposedly a natural instinct, which everyone shares. Kandinsky is said to have looked at a painting by Monet, specifically one of is ‘hay stacks’ painting. Kandinsky was apparently captured by this painting and later wrote
“That it was a haystack the catalogue informed me. I could not recognize it. This non-recognition was painful to me. I considered that the painter had no right to paint indistinctly. I dully felt that the object of the painting was missing. And I noticed with surprise and confusion that the picture not only gripped me, but impressed itself ineradicably on my memory. Painting took on a fairy-tale power and splendour.”
Kandinsky, in my opinion, went on to paint some of the most powerful abstract paintings in the art world, with this inclusion in his own works of splendour, but non representational. Using this piece, we can understand how Kandinsky inspired Pollock, and many like him.
Once again the deep blues of spirituality can be seen here, surrounding the centre of the painting and linking back to Kandinsky’s past works.
On White II (1923) is a great example of Kandinsky’s abstract expressionist works. This piece is a breakthrough for Kandinsky’s search for spirituality, mostly due to its geometrically accurate inclusion of shapes.
The colour of this piece is fantastically wide ranged, with a spectrum of yellows, reds, blues and greens that fit in together but also create an antithesis of almost natural beauty.
Kandinsky proves that chiaroscuro is possible in abstract pieces. The space surrounds and engulfs the main colour wheel. I think Kandinsky’s attempt to portray an artistic explosion of colour and shape from the centre of the piece is successful. The Linear structures, which tear away from the centre, certainly add movement to the image. Their dark structures stand out as if they were slits on the canvas.
"Black is like the silence of the body after death, the close of life." - Wassily Kandinsky, 1911
Black is symbolic of death and negativity, in unmitigated contrast to the usage of white in this piece. As we know, white is emblematic of innocence and silence. White is used to endless dimensions, therefore indicative of ‘possibilities and opportunities of life.’
The interesting harmony of colours connects well with the magnificent usage of complex shapes, with which Kandinsky uses precision. The overall effect of the painting is like many other pieces by Kandinsky, ultimately connected to his love of music.
In Kandinsky's words, "music is the ultimate teacher." He always related the art of painting with composing music and therefore, often referred to his paintings as "Composition." In his words, "Colour is the keyboard, the eyes are the hammer, and the soul is the piano with the strings."
Wassily uses oil, undoubtedly to obtain a thick rough texture. The composition is arranged to create movement and excitement.
Personally, I like this piece because its variety of colour and movement is fantastically outlandish and ultimately a beautiful result.
The link between music and art is vital in understanding Kandinsky’s artwork. He was in search of spirituality within art, and music has a calming spiritualistic notion. The idea that a painting could be based around music is an example of Kandinksy searching for perfection and peace within his paintings. However, ironically enough, many of his works portray a chaotic burst of colour and radiance.
This theory about music linking in with art goes back to ancient Greece, when Plato wrote about the link between tone, harmony and art.
Another theory about Kandinsky’s obsession with bringing together music and art is that he may have had a genetic disorder- that allows his mind to interpret things differently. Synaesthesia manipulates some of the minds senses such as sight and hearing. To someone with this defect, various letters and numbers could appear in various bright colours, and some have claimed that their eyes interpret music. This ability to see music as well as the vivid colours of letters and numbers ties in with most elements of a Kandinsky painting.
The above piece (Contrasting Sounds, 1924) was painted at what most consider being the peak of Kandinsky’s career. This painting is another example of what I feel is Kandinsky’s pivotal technique. By painting separate shapes and overlapping them, he brings the painting together. Contrasting Sounds is an obvious reference to Kandinsky’s use of music as his model on which he based his art upon.
The colours of this piece aren’t as bright and vivid as On White II, though this is probably due to them being overwhelmed by the cardboard it was painted on. The use of cardboard instead of the conventional canvas was probably an experiment for the Russian painter. As you can see the impasto brush strokes that can be seen in his early pieces are non-existent here. Also, I noticed the fauvist use of vivid and sometimes unnatural colours has left his paintings, with the exception of the bright purple streak.
The composition of this piece is obviously based on the piece or pieces in this case, of music it was designed to. The strip of vivid purple represents the contrasting work in relation to the examples of another piece around it, made using only drab colours. Though the contrast between the purple and the drab background is heavy, my eyes are drawn to the ‘chessboard like effect’, in which Kandinsky has used an almost luminescent white to contrast with the black squares. This is a visual antithesis of colour; Kandinsky uses this segment frequently in most of his other ‘pure abstract’ post 1913 works. Because of the uniqueness of Kandinsky’s work, and his narrow choice of shapes, it is easy to compare two or more of his pieces, although it becomes more complex when noting the differences in colours or even the repetition of one segment of a painting. For example, in this piece, the top left corner or ‘beginning’ features a circle, which dwarfs all other shapes on the painting. The circle is split into two halves, probably representing the two pieces of music running alongside each other. The choice of colours for each segment- one being a dark blue, the other drab beige, is symbolic of the contrast between the two. The idea of the circle overall, is a sign of the relationship these pieces share. They are both musical forms for example, though Kandinsky’s hints and a comparative link may have been more complex. The fact that one half of the shape is larger than the other has also caught my attention. It is feasible that the artist was pointing out the way in which one piece of music overwhelms the other.
When I look at a Kandinsky painting such as this one, my first impression is actually a question: Where do I start? My eyes are drawn to the top left corner because reading is from left to right, top to bottom. The use of the circle as the ‘introduction’ is repeated in some of his other pieces, such as Composition VIII.
In my opinion, the curved lines are symbolic of the orchestral notes, the thicker the line- the deeper the pitch.
Overall, the painting fits together nicely, hoever, the background colour does not meld with the rest of the segments and it's morbid tone discourages the viewer from gazing at it. This dark tone is probably the natural cardboard on which it was painted.
I think the fact that Kandinsky changed so often, from one movement to another, and of course one style to another, is crucial to understanding his aims and contributions. It seems obvious that he was trying to blend the art world together in search of the perfect way to express ones self. This talent to spontaneously mix and match various traits from the art world on his canvases. Kandinsky inspired others to carry on this, as well as being a chief inspiration for the Abstract Expressionist movement. This movement has flourished. The works of artists such as Hofmann, Bridget Riley and Piet Mondriaan. Kandinsky taught at the Bauhaus art school in Germany, passing on his knowledge and beliefs. This was a huge contribution to the art work of modern artists across the globe and Kandinsky’s work is still well admired today. He is credited with being the first abstract painter and a pioneer of the modern art world.
In response to the question of ‘How much did Wassily Kandinsky contribute to modern art?’ I feel that his vivid and imaginative paintings, whether the result of a genetic difference or purely curiosity coupled with the search for pure abstraction with spirituality in his work, his paintings are hugely influential to any modern day artist, as they form the foundations of a huge part of the art world. Hofmann, Riley and Mondriaan have each inspired different types of art, rooted from Kandinsky’s work.
How much did Wassily Kandinsky contribute to modern art?
Wassily Kandinsky (1866-1944) is credited with being one of the major pioneers of the abstract movement, producing an array of vibrant colourful pieces in his peak. His fluctuation from figurative landscape painter in his early career to modernist master has served as an inspiration to many other artists worldwide. In this study, I will endeavour to focus on analysing Kandinsky’s change from representational pieces to pure abstraction, making sure I get a taste of the variety in his art.
Each of Wassily Kandinsky’s later paintings are unique, not only from other artists, but also from his own earlier pieces. His ability to implement fauvism into his early works whilst maintaining a look of realism was crucial to his initial success.
In 1896 Kandinsky attended the Academy for Fine Arts in Munich. Many of his early paintings show the influence of Fauvism. They are bold, very colourful paintings painted with typical fauve brushwork- strong and deliberately crude. The paint is often thick and applied with power and energy. The subjects were usually landscape, although he did complete some portraits and woodcuts. This fauvist trend ended roughly around 1914, when Kandinsky stopped painting completely figurative works.
Fauvism is an art movement mainly associated with French artist Herni Matisse. The term Fauvism refers to the use of vivid and often outrageous colour tones. Because Matisse was at his best in the early 1900’s, it is conceivable that these two artists would’ve seen each other’s work. Kandinsky was probably influenced by Matisse’s work.
Wassily altered his artwork as much as his associated movements, and was a member of several small art movements throughout his life. Der Blaue Reiter is a movement Kandinsky started, along with fellow artist Franz Marc, amongst others. The movement focussed on the expression of spiritual truths through art. The name was derived from one of Kandinsky’s early figurative paintings of the same name.
Kandinsky inspired a generation of painters such as Hans Hoffman and Jackson Pollock.
‘Der Blaue Reiter’ (1903) is one of Kandinsky’s most recognised figurative pieces. In English, it is ‘The Blue Rider’, which is shown in its content. The first thing to hit the viewer is the thick brush strokes, which, coupled with vivid fauvist style colours overwhelms the audience. Its powerful feeling of aggression from the brush strokes is confidently mixed with an atmosphere of peace from the calm light blue sky. An important note to make here in relation to the use of the colour blue is as to its spiritual status. It was the belief of those in the Blaue Reiter movement that blue is symbolic of spirituality: the darkest shades supposedly awakening the human desire for the eternal. After realising the connection of the group and the colour, I have since realised that the painting has a lot more blue in it, if not subtle enough to go unnoticed at first sight. The contrast between the blue rider and the white steed is the main focus of the painting, though the bright greens of the field overwhelm this and undoubtedly dominate the canvas. Kandinsky uses contrast heavily in this piece as with the dark blue enveloping the tree line and the light blue sky. The rider and his horse appear to be frozen, though the brush strokes supply the canvas with a sense of movement, allowing the foliage in the background to retain their natural look.
The thickness of the oil paint Kandinsky uses as his medium enhances this surreal experience. Oil was undoubtedly his favourite medium, as it was easy to control and gives the paintings several layers and tones.
Kandinsky has tried to make every inch of this painting interesting, with his use of bright eye catching colours. However, the green space around the rider has a negative effect on me, because of its daunting shade of colour. The spread of green space around the rider doesn’t fit with the rest of the composition.
Overall, I like this piece because of its dramatic change in style from the works of the time. The rough thick texture and use of vivid colours is brought together by the short, violent brush strokes. The mood of the painting differs from others by him, and was probably an experimental work. Though the colour and shapes relate to his previous pieces.
The movement Der Blaue Reiter lasted only 4 years, before being split apart by the First World War. This was a pivotal point in Kandinsky’s life, as his prompt return to Russia saw a huge alteration to his style of painting. No doubt due to the political upheaval experienced in Russia, as well as the development and revolution of communism, his work drastically changed.
This change was to have a profound impact on the history of modern art. Kandinksy, a previously talented, but relatively unknown painter, was to become a father figure to a large number of artists who were to be inspired by his significant and dramatic developments.
By 1913-14, Kandinsky is said to have achieved pure abstraction in his paintings.
The paintings from this period are not the ‘Compositions’, but rather ‘improvisations’. The difference is huge. Improvisations have very few recognisable shapes, lighter colour tones, and much more visible brush strokes.
This piece (Improvisation, 1914) was painted during Kandinsky’s ‘pure abstraction’ period, and this is immediately obvious. The painting stands out to be due to its tidal wave of colour. Though the colour tones are far less exaggerated than his fauvist like tones in previous works.
By now, Kandinsky has moved away from the purely representational paintings, although he does return to them for a short period in 1916 with paintings such as ‘Moscow I’ and ‘Moscow. Smolensky Boulevard. Study’. This was probably an attempt to fit in with the art of his home country, as he had just returned from Western Europe due to the outbreak of the First World War.
In terms of this piece, the composition is quite different to his later works. The pieces don’t feel like they fit together whereas later works such as Composition VIII piece together like a puzzle. The colourful pieces of this puzzle however, give a very dissimilar viewpoint. Kandinsky has not used traditional shapes to create this; instead he uses a variety of brush strokes. The wide strokes of impasto are vaguely recognisable in the top right corner of the canvas.
This example actually extends to the entire top third of the canvas, and was probably used as an antithesis to the thinner swift brush strokes of the bottom section. Similarly, the shapes in the bottom third slightly resemble those we know well, in contrast to the spread of chaotic colour mixing above.
The faint curves in the centre engulf the focus point, which is reminiscent of fruit, because of the colour scheme used. I like the fact that when I look at the painting I immediately look for something, anything representative. My eyes search the image frantically and uncontrollably, in search for a conventional shape or symbol. This is supposedly a natural instinct, which everyone shares. Kandinsky is said to have looked at a painting by Monet, specifically one of is ‘hay stacks’ painting. Kandinsky was apparently captured by this painting and later wrote
“That it was a haystack the catalogue informed me. I could not recognize it. This non-recognition was painful to me. I considered that the painter had no right to paint indistinctly. I dully felt that the object of the painting was missing. And I noticed with surprise and confusion that the picture not only gripped me, but impressed itself ineradicably on my memory. Painting took on a fairy-tale power and splendour.”
Kandinsky, in my opinion, went on to paint some of the most powerful abstract paintings in the art world, with this inclusion in his own works of splendour, but non representational. Using this piece, we can understand how Kandinsky inspired Pollock, and many like him.
Once again the deep blues of spirituality can be seen here, surrounding the centre of the painting and linking back to Kandinsky’s past works.
On White II (1923) is a great example of Kandinsky’s abstract expressionist works. This piece is a breakthrough for Kandinsky’s search for spirituality, mostly due to its geometrically accurate inclusion of shapes.
The colour of this piece is fantastically wide ranged, with a spectrum of yellows, reds, blues and greens that fit in together but also create an antithesis of almost natural beauty.
Kandinsky proves that chiaroscuro is possible in abstract pieces. The space surrounds and engulfs the main colour wheel. I think Kandinsky’s attempt to portray an artistic explosion of colour and shape from the centre of the piece is successful. The Linear structures, which tear away from the centre, certainly add movement to the image. Their dark structures stand out as if they were slits on the canvas.
"Black is like the silence of the body after death, the close of life." - Wassily Kandinsky, 1911
Black is symbolic of death and negativity, in unmitigated contrast to the usage of white in this piece. As we know, white is emblematic of innocence and silence. White is used to endless dimensions, therefore indicative of ‘possibilities and opportunities of life.’
The interesting harmony of colours connects well with the magnificent usage of complex shapes, with which Kandinsky uses precision. The overall effect of the painting is like many other pieces by Kandinsky, ultimately connected to his love of music.
In Kandinsky's words, "music is the ultimate teacher." He always related the art of painting with composing music and therefore, often referred to his paintings as "Composition." In his words, "Colour is the keyboard, the eyes are the hammer, and the soul is the piano with the strings."
Wassily uses oil, undoubtedly to obtain a thick rough texture. The composition is arranged to create movement and excitement.
Personally, I like this piece because its variety of colour and movement is fantastically outlandish and ultimately a beautiful result.
The link between music and art is vital in understanding Kandinsky’s artwork. He was in search of spirituality within art, and music has a calming spiritualistic notion. The idea that a painting could be based around music is an example of Kandinksy searching for perfection and peace within his paintings. However, ironically enough, many of his works portray a chaotic burst of colour and radiance.
This theory about music linking in with art goes back to ancient Greece, when Plato wrote about the link between tone, harmony and art.
Another theory about Kandinsky’s obsession with bringing together music and art is that he may have had a genetic disorder- that allows his mind to interpret things differently. Synaesthesia manipulates some of the minds senses such as sight and hearing. To someone with this defect, various letters and numbers could appear in various bright colours, and some have claimed that their eyes interpret music. This ability to see music as well as the vivid colours of letters and numbers ties in with most elements of a Kandinsky painting.
The above piece (Contrasting Sounds, 1924) was painted at what most consider being the peak of Kandinsky’s career. This painting is another example of what I feel is Kandinsky’s pivotal technique. By painting separate shapes and overlapping them, he brings the painting together. Contrasting Sounds is an obvious reference to Kandinsky’s use of music as his model on which he based his art upon.
The colours of this piece aren’t as bright and vivid as On White II, though this is probably due to them being overwhelmed by the cardboard it was painted on. The use of cardboard instead of the conventional canvas was probably an experiment for the Russian painter. As you can see the impasto brush strokes that can be seen in his early pieces are non-existent here. Also, I noticed the fauvist use of vivid and sometimes unnatural colours has left his paintings, with the exception of the bright purple streak.
The composition of this piece is obviously based on the piece or pieces in this case, of music it was designed to. The strip of vivid purple represents the contrasting work in relation to the examples of another piece around it, made using only drab colours. Though the contrast between the purple and the drab background is heavy, my eyes are drawn to the ‘chessboard like effect’, in which Kandinsky has used an almost luminescent white to contrast with the black squares. This is a visual antithesis of colour; Kandinsky uses this segment frequently in most of his other ‘pure abstract’ post 1913 works. Because of the uniqueness of Kandinsky’s work, and his narrow choice of shapes, it is easy to compare two or more of his pieces, although it becomes more complex when noting the differences in colours or even the repetition of one segment of a painting. For example, in this piece, the top left corner or ‘beginning’ features a circle, which dwarfs all other shapes on the painting. The circle is split into two halves, probably representing the two pieces of music running alongside each other. The choice of colours for each segment- one being a dark blue, the other drab beige, is symbolic of the contrast between the two. The idea of the circle overall, is a sign of the relationship these pieces share. They are both musical forms for example, though Kandinsky’s hints and a comparative link may have been more complex. The fact that one half of the shape is larger than the other has also caught my attention. It is feasible that the artist was pointing out the way in which one piece of music overwhelms the other.
When I look at a Kandinsky painting such as this one, my first impression is actually a question: Where do I start? My eyes are drawn to the top left corner because reading is from left to right, top to bottom. The use of the circle as the ‘introduction’ is repeated in some of his other pieces, such as Composition VIII.
In my opinion, the curved lines are symbolic of the orchestral notes, the thicker the line- the deeper the pitch.
Overall, the painting fits together nicely, hoever, the background colour does not meld with the rest of the segments and it's morbid tone discourages the viewer from gazing at it. This dark tone is probably the natural cardboard on which it was painted.
I think the fact that Kandinsky changed so often, from one movement to another, and of course one style to another, is crucial to understanding his aims and contributions. It seems obvious that he was trying to blend the art world together in search of the perfect way to express ones self. This talent to spontaneously mix and match various traits from the art world on his canvases. Kandinsky inspired others to carry on this, as well as being a chief inspiration for the Abstract Expressionist movement. This movement has flourished. The works of artists such as Hofmann, Bridget Riley and Piet Mondriaan. Kandinsky taught at the Bauhaus art school in Germany, passing on his knowledge and beliefs. This was a huge contribution to the art work of modern artists across the globe and Kandinsky’s work is still well admired today. He is credited with being the first abstract painter and a pioneer of the modern art world.
In response to the question of ‘How much did Wassily Kandinsky contribute to modern art?’ I feel that his vivid and imaginative paintings, whether the result of a genetic difference or purely curiosity coupled with the search for pure abstraction with spirituality in his work, his paintings are hugely influential to any modern day artist, as they form the foundations of a huge part of the art world. Hofmann, Riley and Mondriaan have each inspired different types of art, rooted from Kandinsky’s work.
Film Review: Age of Heroes
A review of the film "Age of Heroes" starring Sean Bean and Danny Dyer, Directed by Adrian Vitoria. (Spoilers)
Please note, there may be some spoilers below.
The film 'Age of Heroes', release on 20th May 2011, is set during World Wwar II and is based upon real-life events.
The film focusses on the formation of James Bond novelist Ian Fleming's 30 Commando Unit (a precursor for the modern SAS) as well as their first mission against Nazi Germany. The film doesn't boast a huge number of stars, but Sean Bean and Danny Dyer do the job quite nicely. Bean was cast perfectly for the role of British Army Major Jones. Beans' upper-class British accent is on occaission mixed with a typical Northern tone. I found this really convincing as it reminds me of Beans days as British fictional hero Sharpe. This valuable acting experience no doubt helped Bean to form the character of Jones in this film. His tough attitude makes him a perfect candidate for the
Meanwhile Dyer was the main focus of the film and he was very convincing as Corporal Rains- a British soldier invited to join the special unit by Jones (Bean). The film quickly catalogues the troops vigorous training, as well as some of the punishments of the British Army during this period, before taking the Commando Unit on location to Norway- Director Adrian Vitoria is to be congratulated for this, as I know most WWII films tend to focus all to often on France or Russia (Saving Private Ryan, Enemy at the Gates for example).
The location offers a very realistic setting for the British operation, and the introduction of an RAF Specialist (John Dagleish) into the script makes the unit more cohesive and thus more believable. The ferocity of the fire fights was also very refreshing, having watched many low budget war films.
I felt that the two stars who stole the limelight with their very authentic acting and perfect concept of the film genre were Will Houston (Sherloch Holmes, Clash of the Titans) who played the fantastic Scottish Sergeant and James D'Arcy (Master & Commander) who played a convincingly dashing and affable Ian Fleming. These two brign together the cast and the former occaissionally adds humour to the storyline.
The only low point to me was the rushed feel to it. The training scenes weren't as long as they should've been and the final scenes left me with some confusion, however it was still a pretty epic film.
Ultimately, this film is definately a very good starter to what looks to be an enthralling trilogy, and has already achieved something very few war films ever do- realism. The film portrays so much 'Britishness' that it is a credit to the British film industry.
Director Adrian Vitoria has pleasantly surprised me. Having seen his work in British Television series Casualty and The Bill, I had relatively low expectations for this film because of Vitoria's little experience in the action film market. He definately left me wanting more!
4 Stars from me.
Please note, there may be some spoilers below.
The film 'Age of Heroes', release on 20th May 2011, is set during World Wwar II and is based upon real-life events.
The film focusses on the formation of James Bond novelist Ian Fleming's 30 Commando Unit (a precursor for the modern SAS) as well as their first mission against Nazi Germany. The film doesn't boast a huge number of stars, but Sean Bean and Danny Dyer do the job quite nicely. Bean was cast perfectly for the role of British Army Major Jones. Beans' upper-class British accent is on occaission mixed with a typical Northern tone. I found this really convincing as it reminds me of Beans days as British fictional hero Sharpe. This valuable acting experience no doubt helped Bean to form the character of Jones in this film. His tough attitude makes him a perfect candidate for the
Meanwhile Dyer was the main focus of the film and he was very convincing as Corporal Rains- a British soldier invited to join the special unit by Jones (Bean). The film quickly catalogues the troops vigorous training, as well as some of the punishments of the British Army during this period, before taking the Commando Unit on location to Norway- Director Adrian Vitoria is to be congratulated for this, as I know most WWII films tend to focus all to often on France or Russia (Saving Private Ryan, Enemy at the Gates for example).
The location offers a very realistic setting for the British operation, and the introduction of an RAF Specialist (John Dagleish) into the script makes the unit more cohesive and thus more believable. The ferocity of the fire fights was also very refreshing, having watched many low budget war films.
I felt that the two stars who stole the limelight with their very authentic acting and perfect concept of the film genre were Will Houston (Sherloch Holmes, Clash of the Titans) who played the fantastic Scottish Sergeant and James D'Arcy (Master & Commander) who played a convincingly dashing and affable Ian Fleming. These two brign together the cast and the former occaissionally adds humour to the storyline.
The only low point to me was the rushed feel to it. The training scenes weren't as long as they should've been and the final scenes left me with some confusion, however it was still a pretty epic film.
Ultimately, this film is definately a very good starter to what looks to be an enthralling trilogy, and has already achieved something very few war films ever do- realism. The film portrays so much 'Britishness' that it is a credit to the British film industry.
Director Adrian Vitoria has pleasantly surprised me. Having seen his work in British Television series Casualty and The Bill, I had relatively low expectations for this film because of Vitoria's little experience in the action film market. He definately left me wanting more!
4 Stars from me.
Should The British Government Pay for Student Tuition Fees?
An insight into the argument over rising tuition fees in England- and a focus around the main question being raised- Should the British Government pay for Student Tuition Fees?
I strongly suspect that many students across the country, much like myself, are wondering how on earth they are going to survive later on in life when they are bogged down by the current downward spiralling jobs market and on top of that, student loan debt, let alone survival through University life its self!
From a very young age I aspired to go to university- mainly due to the respect that a few letters after your name gave you back in those days. However, now I am much older, with a greater understanding of todays economic climate, and the harsh realisation that I cannot afford to go to university without condenming much of my later life to repaying such loans. I can't help feeling some negative feelings towards the British Government for not only refusing to pay student loans completely, but certainly for rising them to even more astounding heights.I am also very jealous of any Scottish or Welsh students at the moment!
So let's examine the argument- if the Government were to pay for students to go to university, would it work?
Well for starters it would only serve to worsen the current economic climate- more debt means more cuts and less Gov funding elsewhere. However, countries such as Scotland, Greece, Finland, Norway & China have all managed it. I suppose some critics would argue that Scotland is a much smaller country than England, Greece are currently experiencing the some of the worst economic problems seen in any EU country recently and finally that China is not a democratic country and has some of the worst human rights records on the planet. However, China is certainly one of the most technoogically advanced countries on the planet- so maybe paying for students to go to university has it's benefits later on i.e. more people with degrees= more people working in skilled areas of the market= better development.
Some may argue that without tuition fees in place, anyone who meets the grades would be free to go to university and a degree would lose it's value. Certainly we have seen similar circumstances recently where companies have been swamped by students with degrees in this, that and the other, but this happened whilst fees where in place- so apart from funding for university institutions, do the fees play any other role??
I'd wager that a very small percentage of the Countries population can actually afford the £9000 tuition fees that univesities like Oxford & Cambridge are planning to charge next year. I have several friends aspiring to apply to such top universities, and they and their families are very worried about these rises.
Suurely it is better to not charge tuition fees and have more skilled workers than make students try to pay off a loan that most cannot afford?? At least with more skilled people, opportunities abroad will open up, and make for a more prosperous relationship with other countries.
I personally feel that although in the current climate, the Goverment cannot afford to pay for tution fees, the new increase should be reversed and the Government should definately look at a strategy for gradually lowering the tuition fees and eventually scrapping them altogether. I think that the Government have not considered the future impact, only the short term costs and implications.
I strongly suspect that many students across the country, much like myself, are wondering how on earth they are going to survive later on in life when they are bogged down by the current downward spiralling jobs market and on top of that, student loan debt, let alone survival through University life its self!
From a very young age I aspired to go to university- mainly due to the respect that a few letters after your name gave you back in those days. However, now I am much older, with a greater understanding of todays economic climate, and the harsh realisation that I cannot afford to go to university without condenming much of my later life to repaying such loans. I can't help feeling some negative feelings towards the British Government for not only refusing to pay student loans completely, but certainly for rising them to even more astounding heights.I am also very jealous of any Scottish or Welsh students at the moment!
So let's examine the argument- if the Government were to pay for students to go to university, would it work?
Well for starters it would only serve to worsen the current economic climate- more debt means more cuts and less Gov funding elsewhere. However, countries such as Scotland, Greece, Finland, Norway & China have all managed it. I suppose some critics would argue that Scotland is a much smaller country than England, Greece are currently experiencing the some of the worst economic problems seen in any EU country recently and finally that China is not a democratic country and has some of the worst human rights records on the planet. However, China is certainly one of the most technoogically advanced countries on the planet- so maybe paying for students to go to university has it's benefits later on i.e. more people with degrees= more people working in skilled areas of the market= better development.
Some may argue that without tuition fees in place, anyone who meets the grades would be free to go to university and a degree would lose it's value. Certainly we have seen similar circumstances recently where companies have been swamped by students with degrees in this, that and the other, but this happened whilst fees where in place- so apart from funding for university institutions, do the fees play any other role??
I'd wager that a very small percentage of the Countries population can actually afford the £9000 tuition fees that univesities like Oxford & Cambridge are planning to charge next year. I have several friends aspiring to apply to such top universities, and they and their families are very worried about these rises.
Suurely it is better to not charge tuition fees and have more skilled workers than make students try to pay off a loan that most cannot afford?? At least with more skilled people, opportunities abroad will open up, and make for a more prosperous relationship with other countries.
I personally feel that although in the current climate, the Goverment cannot afford to pay for tution fees, the new increase should be reversed and the Government should definately look at a strategy for gradually lowering the tuition fees and eventually scrapping them altogether. I think that the Government have not considered the future impact, only the short term costs and implications.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)