Almost everyone has heard of Picasso in one way or another. Even those who have not completed an art class or even possess a basic knowledge of art could more than likely be able to pick his paintings out of a line up of many. As stated in Chapter Two, Pablo Picasso was an artist that had been traditionally trained before he began experimenting with different styles. Eventually Picasso settled on the highly stylized paintings, or Cubism, that he is known so well for today. His paintings are striking, bold, and have no inability grabbing your attention. Yet when you look at his work First Communion it looks to be painted by an entirely different artist
Likewise, Vasily Kandinsky’s, a Russian painter of the twentieth century, compiles paintings that are also bold attention grabbers. In addition to this, his paintings are also very similar to Picasso’s in the fact that they almost force people to view art in a way that they were not used to seeing it. There was not a scene or a landscape to be depicted in his paitnings. Instead his work is entirely nonrepresentational. To some individuals his paintings may even seem like flat, random objects slapped onto a paper and called art, much as some might criticize Picasso by saying a child could paint as he does or insist that it is not art at all.
The difference in there artwork are more distinct than their similarities. Picasso, while dealing with the abstract, based on something that could be found and located in a visual field. Kandinsky’s paintings, however, are there own creations that, as pointed out, do not exist outside of themselves. To put it in simpler terms, if the subjects of Kandinsky’s paintings were to spring to life and take a stroll down the street there would be more than a few brows raised and no one would be able to point and say “Oh that’s a person” or “that probably a vase”. Instead they might point and say “that’s a weird… flat… triangle thingy with an odd… curvular triangle… thing” or just stare with their mouths agape.
No comments:
Post a Comment