One thing that I love about contemporary art is its ability to take a stand with its “in your face” messages. When looking at a beautiful landscape painting by Renior, one can imagine several different reasons why he may have chose to paint it, but none of these reasons really stand out and force the viewer to think. An art historian may look at a Renior landscape and be able to point out when this painting was done in his life and connect this to the political situation at the time and write a journal about why the painting is actually very rebellious, but at the same time, that same painting could hang in the women’s restroom of an upscale restaurant or above the couch in an elderly couple’s home, and in these cases, it would not be anything more than a pretty picture.
Contemporary art, on the other hand, has an obvious deeper meaning. Although the idea that the art is trying to express can often be up for interpretation, the fact that it is trying to express something is key. This is the case with Heartfield’s work. Before reading any of his biography, I looked at his art. Although this is the first time I am being introduced to Heartfield, and I do not know much about his life, I can see that is paintings are obviously politically motivated and trying to express an idea.
For example, Heartfield’s anti-Hitler artwork is obviously trying to convey a message. Regardless of whether the audience saw his “Blood and Iron” in a bar, above a living room couch, or in a museum, they would understand that the art is an anti-nazi piece, and, without knowing anything about Heartfield’s background, would know that he was opposed to the nazi regime.
The photo I chose is another anti-nazi piece by the Russian Boris Artzybasheff. It, like Heartfield’s work, has deeper meaning that easily and apparent.
Eileen -
ReplyDeleteYour reference to Renior made me think about what type of art I appreciate more - an aesthetically pleasing landscape or a piece which speaks to society through its use of politically recognizable images? Both are very different, and it's difficult to compare because they have such different motives. Though, I feel work like Heartfield's is more important to look at and analyze because it goes beyond art and explains a historical perspective.
Comparing Heartfield's art to that of an artist that paints fine art really illustrated the difference between the two kinds of art. I guess it's something that I have always known. I find it more interesting to look at art that is conveying a clear message because it makes me feel like it is important, like looking at that art actually matters. I agree with Doug as well. Heartfield is definitely an artist whose work needs to be analyzed for the message. But because his motives were so clear, it shouldn't be that difficult to do so.
ReplyDelete