Neolithic art is purely fascinating.

Human figures from Ain Ghazal, Jordan

6750-6250 BCE, plaster, size varies

Some are located at the Louvre 

So I am taking ancient art history this semester and honestly I never thought that I was all that interested in ancient art... but I most definitely am. I have posted only one super old dating post (Lascaux) but as I am outlining chapter one of my textbook and I had to stop to tell you all about these crazy human figures found in Jordan. 

I am already finding that what I love most about studying ancient art history is that the descriptions in my book aren't like a million pages long. Now I don't mean this in the "I am such a slacker student and I hate reading" type of way, but I LOVE the fact that these things are so old that no one can really come up with an agreed upon explanation of everything. Additionally, every time some archeologist finds something new, every single thing gets re-questioned. I assume this would start to get annoying because they can never say things like, "We did it! We solved the mystery of Paleolithic and Neolithic art!," but for someone who is just studying it, it's really amusing. 

Anyways, these human figures were found buried beneath these really old settlements (and by really old I mean like 6500 BCE old). The figures are made of white plaster and the eyes were made with this tar-like substance. Some of the statues suggest gender, but for the most part they aren't gender specific. For the most part it is mostly assumed that these figures were ritually buried and had some purpose. So what's the big deal? Well, some of these statues are pretty large for being so dang old (like 3 feet) and most importantly, they establish the beginning of monumental sculpture in the Ancient Near East. That's a pretty big stinkin' deal if you ask me. 

Okay I realize that my whole purpose of this blog is to make (cough, normal) people in to art history. I understand that Paleolithic and Neolithic art are the hardest types of art to get people interested in, but here's the thing; it's cool because it's so old. It's so old that people debate if they even should be considered art. I just love to marvel over the fact that people a million zillion years ago created these things of art. They inhabited this sense of artistic ambition. They had the desire to create, and that's extremely fascinating. 

Neolithic art is purely fascinating.

I just love Vincent Van Gogh.

Shoes by Vincent Van Gogh

1888, Oil on canvas, 18 x 22 inches

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City

I feel like I apologize for disappearing way too often, but I swear I don't neglect Inadvertently Art on purpose. If things went my way, I would have a specific allotted time each day to write in here, but I am human therefore, I must maintain a busy schedule. Anyways, I am in the processing of moving/setting up my new place so it's pretty hard to find a spare minute, but alas! Here I am.

I just finished putting up a lot of art in my room and I stumbled upon a bunch Van Gogh prints that I have and noticed Shoes. I don't know how I have ever over looked this, but it's brilliant. As many of you know, Vincent was a troubled man and the more I learn about his life the more I am amazed at his ability to still see the beauty of the world.

He painted a lot of different works depicting shoes and honestly I love them all. Shoes first caught my eye because it's not a typical Van Gogh. I always love when people think they have pin pointed an artist and then they are thrown off by a piece like Shoes. Secondly, the premise behind the piece is beautiful. I am always amazed at the difference between an unartistic mind and the mind of an artist. Artist's are mentally able to see beauty in everything... even a pair of shoes.

The truth of the matter is quite simple. While there is no denying that there is beauty in the sky, trees, flowers, and ocean there is also this unmistakable beauty in ordinary everyday things like shoes. There is so much to learn from this, but I'll just leave that up to you. 

I just love Vincent Van Gogh.

Norman Rockwell was just simple, straightforward, and honest.

Triple Self-Portrait by Norman Rockwell

1960, Oil on Canvas, 44 1/2 x 34 3/4 in.

The Norman Rockwell Musuem at Stockbridge

Before I write an entry, I always do some research on the artist and the piece and let me tell you, I have learned so much in that past couple of months.  It's amazing how many random facts I have learned about all these artists. For example, Norman Rockwell's son, Thomas Rockwell, wrote the children's book How to Eat Fried Worms. I LOVED that book! I just really enjoy this blog. My hope is that other people enjoy it, but for the most part, I will always continue writing in this just for my own selfish pleasure.

Norman Rockwell has always been one of my favorites. I love artists that portray simple things and simple times. But on top of that, Norman was extremely talented. I mean, he left his school at age 14 to attend art school and everyone always knew he had potential. He couldn't escape his artistic destiny. When he tried to join the military for WWI, they made him a military artist. He is most known for his illustrations for the magazine The Saturday Evening Post where illustrations like Triple Self-Portrait frequently made the cover.

Triple Self-Portrait remains my all time favorite Norman Rockwell. It's just so darn clever. He is looking in he mirror and seeing what he really looks like, but drawing the man he wished he looked like. My favorite part are the other self-portraits that are in the upper right corner of his canvas. He has included a collection of self-portraits from many various art periods. The first is a self-portrait of the Northern Renaissance artist Albrecht Durer who was from the late 15th to early 16th century. Next to Durer is Dutch artist Rembrandt, beneath that is an abstract Picasso, and the bottom piece is a self-portrait of Van Gogh. Each of these artists created a large body of self-portraits and were essentially known for some of the best self-portraits.

You know, self-portraits are a funny thing. I mean, if someone asked me to draw myself I think it would be really hard. One, because I can't draw but more importantly because I wouldn't know how or where to start. If I made myself better looking than I really was, people might think I was vain. If I made myself seem over confident, I would seem self absorbed. If the expression on my face was a little stern, I might seem too angry. I mean, it just seems so hard. What facial expression do you choose? What clothes do you choose? What position? How big? It really seems a bit overwhelming. Thankfully, Norman Rockwell chose to go about his self-portrait with humor as he was a funny guy. It's really brillant actually. He painted himself three times. One in the mirror, one painting himself, and of course one of the canvas. In doing this he not only creates a triple self-portrait, but a strong statement. Self-portraits are usually never all that precise. There is just something about someone painting themself that is hard to accomplish. People always paint the person they want to be, adjusting details to their standard. Norman gives the viewer himself as he wishes, and himself as he is and in a way, this is the most honest self-portrait there is.

Norman Rockwell was just simple, straightforward, and honest.

Pollock was simply a man with little to say, but a lot to express.

No. 5, 1948 by Jackson Pollock

1948, Oil on Canvas, 243.8 cm × 121.9 cm

Private Collection

Okay so I have known that I wanted to feature Jackson Pollock for the past week, and I even started this post like a week ago, I just never got around to finishing it and I just realized why. It's really freaking hard to try and explain Pollock with words. But I will try....

So I can't tell you how many times I hear about people hating Jackson Pollock. In fact, a lot of people associate the whole "modern art" category with paintings like Pollock's; weird, lacking skill, and NOT art. I think the reason I defend Jackson Pollock so much is because I know about his evolution as an artist. I guess the best way to explain it is to breifly explain art around his time. Right after World War II ended, art changed. It changed big time. Art quickly became the visual expression in reaction to the chaos and destruction that occured during the war, the movement was called Abstract Expression. Just like WWII ended with a BOOM (literally), art drastically changed almost instantaneously.

Pollock's best known works are his drip paintings. Now here's where it gets a little tricky. Part of the whole Abstract Expressionism movement had to do with expression. Pollock did something huge. Instead of putting the canvas upright, or on a easel, he layed canvas on the floor and methodically worked dripping paint onto the canvas while moving around his creation. This is where people might say, "Okay how is that art?!" Well my friends, it's art and it's art at its finest.

In regards to his painting technique, Pollock once said, "On the floor I am more at ease. I feel nearer, more a part of the painting, since this way I can walk around it, work from the four sides and literally be in the painting." You see, Pollock didn't care about traditional artistic means. He didn't care about making a realistic image. He cared about creating a piece filled with expression. THAT is art. Also, it wasn't as if he shut his eyes and just started splattering paint everywhere, each stroke, each drip, and each splatter was meticulousy thought out and it definitely wasn't random as so many think.

In the world of Jackson Pollock, it wasn't about what he painted, it was about how he painted and in his case it made all the difference. So next time you see a Jackson Pollock drip painting, try to feel his mood, try to feel his emotion, and try to understand his form of visual expression.

Pollock was simply a man with little to say, but a lot to express.

Audrey Flack encourages our inner beauty.

Marilyn (Vanitas) by Audrey Flack

1977, Oil over acyclic on canvas, 96 x 96 in.

Collection of the artist

I can't believe I haven't done an Audrey Flack, she is one of my favorite artists. Audrey Flack is extremely talented and works and many many styles, but my favorite can be seen by the work above- photorealism. In a nutshell, photorealist's create images that look as real as an actual photograph. It began in the 1970's, and Audrey Flack is part of the first wave of artists to use the style. Pretty cool because she is a woman and it's pretty dang hard to get recognized in the art world if you are a female and don't do something with outrageous feminist undertones. Another thing to note, is that photorealism stemmed out of Pop Art thus you get a lot of bright colors, reactions to the media, and iconic symbols. I just like photorealism because it's really amazing how realistic it is. Time and time again I am looking at a photorealist piece thinking it is a photograph and then casually glance at the medium and think, "WHAT?! This is paint?!"

Marilyn (Vanitas) is one of Audrey's more famous pieces. A few things to explain. Vanitas is a old form of symbolic painting. They did it a lot in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. It is associated with still-life painting, which is also rich in symbols. Each still-life piece usually centers around a few main themes: death, life, and pleasure. Basically, "Vanitas" refers to a visual expression of the "vanities" in life.

Tearing apart Audrey's Marilyn (Vanitas) you can assume quite a few things. First, there are a few symbols of death: the hourglass, the calendar, and the clock all refer to the passing of time. Marilyn Monroe was a sex symbol and thought to be the quintessential representation of beauty, but Flack includes lipstick, a compact, perfume, and jewellery all to show that beauty is fleeting. The fruit cut open usually is some type of symbol of death as well, as once you cut it open it will rot away eventually. The paint brush either symbolizes blood, as in death, or the fact that her life was short-lived, like an unfinished painting. The reflection of the image in the mirror is not precise, which is a visual commentary to the imperfections in Marilyn and more importantly, that beauty is not everything. Audrey also made the piece personal, as she included an image of her and her younger brother when they were young in the center of the composition.

There are a ton more symbols, but you get the idea. I guess you might be thinking, why do I love a picture filled with so many death related symbols? Well, I suppose I haven't made the good in this piece prevalent. Marilyn is a commentary on one of the most well-known icons of beauty- Marilyn Monroe. Though many thought she had it all, she died at a very young age from a probable suicide. Audrey's piece suggests that beauty is definitely short-lived and doesn't always lead to happiness. I think a lot of us, especially in today's world of plastic surgery, tend to forget this. So I loved Audrey Flack not only because her work is just amazing, but because she inspires deep thought on ideas that really matter.

Audrey Flack encourages our inner beauty.

Seurat, dot. Simple enough.

A Sunday on La Grande Jatte by Georges Seurat

1884, Oil on Canvas, 207.5 x 308 cm

The Art Institute of Chicago

I have been trying to write this post for two days now, but during the last week of school, your teachers like to lock you in a prison with no fun. With that said, as of today school is officially over (until the next semester)! So I can re-begin my love affair with Inadvertently Art. Now on to Seurat.

Seurat, dot. That pretty much sums it up. If there are any Herold fans that read this, YOU know what I am talkin' about. Anyways, Georges Seurat is considered to be a post-impressionist, mainly because he came after the Impressionists. Clever? Not really. Seurat was obsessed with color, so much so that he began experimenting with millions of dots close together, in a style art people call pointillism. Basically, he just painted a bunch of dots of different colors close to one another and created these really cool images. Up close, you can't tell what the crap anything is, but from far away you can see the whole picture, which is pretty huge by the way. It's pretty dang cool if you ask me.

As far as what the painting "means," eh well there are many ideas. Personally, I hate that every painting needs to have a structured meaning, and I tend to like those that no one can figure out or agree upon (eg. Bosch) but if we must..... A Sunday on La Grande Jatte can mean a lot, but here's my opinion. It's important to notice that the park is really crowded, but on one seems to be talking and everyone is in their own little neatly confined space. So despite the fact that the park is crowded and at first might give one the impression that it is busy, after second glace you notice that it is just the opposite. It really seems like a slice of time, which I love. But on top of that, it really evokes peace, which I love even more. Instead of thinking, "What a busy and crowded park!" one begins to think, "What a peaceful place." To sum it up, I just like how the piece makes me feel, relaxed and at peace. And I really wouldn't want to imply anything further than that.

Oh by the way, as of some time last week, the Art Institute of Chicago (where the piece is held) launched their project to raise money for the Museum and Institute. They do it every year, but this year is actually pretty cool. You can "Adopt a Dot" from A Sunday on La Grande Jatte and recieve a color button of the dot you adopted. It's $10 for one dot, $25 for three, and $50 for all six color dots. I think it's a clever idea. If you're interested you can find more information here.

Seurat, dot. Simple enough.

Let Bosch let you escape for a minute.

The Garden of Earthly Delights by Hieronymus Bosch

1503-1504, Oil on wood, 87 in × 153 in

Museo del Prado, Madrid

It's Bosch day people! If you're are thinking, "What the crap?" You are on the right track. What the crap is exactly right. Bosch is like the 16th century equivalent of modern day Lady Gaga. Lady Gaga is really freakin' weird, if you don't believe go watch this. After I saw that video I was left staring at my computer screen with a "what the crap" expression on my face. The funny part is people like Lady Gaga are accepted, and even more weird, encouraged in today's society and media, but 16th century Bosch... not so much.

Bosch is puzzling, imaginative, and just plain weird. Let's take a gander in The Garden of Earthly Delights. Well I first should mention that the image I provided is part of a triptych, or a three panel painting, I just couldn't put that in here because my blog is structured narrow and it would cut off two of the panels. Oh and the second image is a close up from one of the panels. What's funny about Bosch is that no art historian has agreed on any interpretation for him. Actually it's even funnier when art historians try to explain Bosch. You get a whole lot of "odd like creatures" and "imaginative fantasy world," but that's where it stops. You can't get any further than that. A lot of people think that Bosch's work and symbols were widely reognized in his time, but seriously I don't believe this because one, why don't we know what they mean now, and two, yeah freakin' right. You can't tell me that an egg with tree stump legs and people living in it's butt was widely recognizable. True, some of the imagery is agreed upon. The triptych is called The Garden of Eathly Delights afterall, so you can infer some from that. Creation, Hell, Paradise, and Adam/Eve being among the few. For the most part, Bosch's work is just the typical pothead's splendor, but who am I to judge that!

Bosch just created these huge works of art with all these really weird things. It's hard to imagine even thinking like that, but he did. I mean I can draw a really weird thing just as well as the next two year old, but Bosch takes it to the next level. He creates these amazing fantasy worlds, much like J.K. Rowling does with Harry Potter, and as we know about the popularity of Harry Potter- people like that. People like escaping from their present situation and stresses into an imaginary world. Though Bosch's work might have been intended to show people the fate of the immoral, I view Bosch as an outlet for frustration. If I am ever stressed about school or something, I google Bosch and just stare. And each time, like looking at a "Where's Waldo" print, I find another creature feasting on the fish foot of a 6 legged monster with blue foam coming out of it's ears pierced with rainbow spears.

So for once, let's not try and find a mutual interpretation of a piece. Let's not suggest religious undertones, let's not try and spot all the influences, and most importantly let's just enjoy.

Let Bosch let you escape for a minute.