I did not expect to see any, "Bathers" in an art gallery... and like it!

At the Baltimore Museum of Art, I came across the oil on canvas painting, "Bathers," by Paul Cezanne. The French artist painted the work from 1898-1900.
Initially, the way the trees were painted with groupings of brush strokes to add depth and shadow drew me into the picture. Once I was closer to the work, I noticed that there were even more bathing figures than I had originally perceived, and that the background contained a small house, fields, and the shadows of mountains in the distance. The form of the bathers was precise enough to see the curvature of each figures' muscles, yet not so defined as to take away from the natural easiness and simplicity that the painting conveyed. The outlining of the figures, and lack of facial features or hair added a sense of mystery yet cleanliness. Maybe the reason that Cezanne chose to represent the figure
in this manner was to subtly signify cleanliness since they were bathing. The muscles and trunks of the trees are strong, yet the branches of the trees and arms of the bathers are softer and more flexible in form; the juxtaposition is pleasant.
The colors used in the piece are cool, except for the ones in the foreground used in the closest bathers and the sunlit ground. In the shade, especially by the river has the darkest hues of blue, grey, green, and brown, possibly to signify the temperature of the river in contrast with the warm bodies by it.
The overall composition is pleasing to the eye. The orientation and implied movement of the figures, the use of small L-shapes, the leading lines created by branches, bodies, and space leads the eye just to the center of the painting. The three figures in the middle draw the eye between and beyond them to more bathers who are in the river, the house and field in the background, and then finally to the mountains and sky in the background.
There is a sense of harmony and easiness in this painting that calms me and makes me want to breathe in cool crisp air and just watch the world go by around me. This is why it is my favorite piece that I saw that afternoon.

I Had No Desire to Chatter About, "Chatter"

On September 28th, I attended the gallery event, showcasing the mixed media collection of works by Kyle Bauer, titled "chatter". I did not like the collection, or the presentation of the works in general.
Maybe I would have a better appreciation for it if I were there earlier in the event for when he spoke about his collection. When I attempted to learn about the pieces in the gallery, I was struck with further confusion, as there were no artist statements attached to the title plaques of the pieces. Further, half of his pieces were untitled studies. Apparently, the pieces were arranged to "guide" the viewer through the gallery, but I did not get that sense at all, and frankly do not know where this path of the sculptures' supposed special orientation was supposed to take me. The one piece I did like is the one pictured to the right. If it had meaning behind it other than "fireworks," then I would respect it more.
In response to his statement in the card, which described his work, I still do not understand the meaning his work was designed to inspire from the viewer, or even from him. I guess that some of his works could be metaphors for a journey, but honestly I struggle to see it. Even the way he described his own creative process as letting, "the objects dictate their own form," is illogical. He created the works. Works cannot create themselves. He claims that there are, "multiple layers of meaning," but I can hardly see one.
Maybe I dislike the creative process, the formalist perspective, or the oddness of the show in general, but the bottom line is: I do not feel the need to chatter about "chatter," ever again.

Response to Italo Calvino's, "Visibility"

Dante and Thomas Aquinas argue that a more spiritual, higher being such as God is imposing messages that our subconscious takes in and then translates and reflects through high fantasy style thinking. This is the type of thinking used to create dreams, which he claims is altogether distinct from imagining anything consciously through a sort of "corporeal imagination" (Page 81-82). I do not agree with this logic. I think that if I we are to imagine a scene or scenario in our minds consciously, it is because we have already or are actively, drawing from experiences and observations that we have made. In the case of high fantasy dream thought, I believe that it is fueled entirely by the subconscious, unless the individual is lucid dreaming.
Saint Ignatius de Loyola suggests that one must understand scripture first and then they may view the images of holy figures as the church created them to look, so that the viewer does not use their own imagination to conjure up a different image (Page 86). The author, Italo Calvino, then asserts that the process that Loyola describes, hearing and then eventually seeing the image, allows for a lot of time to imagine other scenarios and images in the middle. The author makes a valid point, and I believe that if the church wanted there to be only one image associated with representing the trinity, or any holy person, then they should show that before teaching the scriptures. Loyola posits that we actively make "mental movies" in our minds, but why not create a character's image first and then add the personality and plot? It would probably be a lot more effective.
I do not agree with the point made on page 87 that there is a sort of transcendence of imagery to the mind. I think that the brain is simply too complex for us to understand in its entirety at the technological level, which our society and world is currently situated. Dreams and seemingly random, complex thought must be attributed to some scientific explanation about cognition. This meta-cognition is simply too advanced for us to understand yet. So, while I do not believe cognition to be spiritually based at the moment, if it is never proven to be biologically based, then I would see no reason for the spiritual arguments made to be implausible anymore.

Reflections on, "The Whole Ball of Wax"

"The Whole Ball of Wax," by Jerry Saltz, insists that art subtly and incrementally influences and impacts the world and the individuals in it. Saltz claims that art is equal in importance with other subject matters like science, politics, or religion, which I do not entirely agree with. I believe that art is a different concept all together; one that is not confined by a simple "subject," but rather weaves its way into all aspects of our lives. I think that art is a supplement and compliment to other subjects because of its vast, yet immersive nature. For example, you cannot enter a church without viewing some form of art, or open a textbook without viewing a digitally designed page, or turn on the television without finding digitally designed images or videos. So, while Saltz argues that art is an equal sized cog in the machine we call life, I would like to counter that it is grease that aids all the cogs: always there influencing the machine's functions to varying degrees, but often overlooked or unrecognized by the cogs.
The influence and pervasive nature of art is undeniable, and understanding it is an ever-evolving process. Art is very nonlinear and nonobjective in a very linear and objective world. It is a multifaceted instrument that has layers upon layers of meaning, which can change depending on the experiences of the observer, the artist, and the time period in which it is observed. It is fluid in its meaning and its purpose. Saltz mentions that Oscar Wilde once remarked that, "the moment you think you understand a work of art it's dead for you". I couldn't agree more. Art has different meanings for each individual, but that meaning can also change for them as individuals depending on their changed experiences and knowledge base. So, while the art does not alter, our understandings of it do.
Art is a dynamic, moving-part of society that is necessary for the sanity of everyone. It involves so much more than creating a work, and letting people look at it. Art is experiencing something spiritual, and cognitive. It can subconsciously influence our emotions, thoughts, and actions. Art surrounds us all, and is a larger part of our lives than is often realized. Art is an ever-present gift that influences all aspects of our lives and society. So, I wholeheartedly agree with Saltz that art is a necessary and inseparable component of our existence as human beings.