Hello! This is my first entry here at "steezys hot spot". Here's a little background info before i go into my spiel. I'm currently attending the University of the North Carolina School of the Arts. I'm a freshman in the second year of a two year visual arts program. This year i'm taking an art history class and part of a grade is to keep some sort of "commonplace book" about artists and such. I started off with a rinky dinky journal but really didn't feel invested. seeing how i am on the net frequently i figured that maybe a blog would be easier to keep up with. so here i am. i hope my thoughts are minimally interesting. Here's a pic of me so you can get a full idea. i'm the one with the weird face.
So, let's talk about Bellini-not the cocktail, the painter. Bellini was an Italian renaissance painter who said to have revolutionized venetian painting. So when i took a look at Bellini's paintings i saw a ton of Madonna and child paintings. for example
So why did bellini paint so many madonna and child? was it his attention to tradition, his quest to make the perfect painting? did he have a weird infatuation with mother and infant?was being creative even such a big deal back then? being an art student i feel this intense pressure to constantly be not only creative but also conceptual. back in day, was there even such a thing as creativity? that makes me wonder. what would art be like now if there was no pressure to be creative? Take chuck close for example. creates incredible portraits but in all reality they are not incredibly creative. I guess my point would be, is it right for us to criticize artists for not being incredibly creative/conceptual? where do we draw the line between skill and something void in meaning?
Overall while i find both close's and bellini's work visuall stunning, i find them both a little boring and one note after i get over the initial awe of their skill. I prefer conceptually sound art that evokes thought rather then amazing technical work. i suppose it's my own personal preference but i'll leave it at that.
So, let's talk about Bellini-not the cocktail, the painter. Bellini was an Italian renaissance painter who said to have revolutionized venetian painting. So when i took a look at Bellini's paintings i saw a ton of Madonna and child paintings. for example
So why did bellini paint so many madonna and child? was it his attention to tradition, his quest to make the perfect painting? did he have a weird infatuation with mother and infant?was being creative even such a big deal back then? being an art student i feel this intense pressure to constantly be not only creative but also conceptual. back in day, was there even such a thing as creativity? that makes me wonder. what would art be like now if there was no pressure to be creative? Take chuck close for example. creates incredible portraits but in all reality they are not incredibly creative. I guess my point would be, is it right for us to criticize artists for not being incredibly creative/conceptual? where do we draw the line between skill and something void in meaning?
Overall while i find both close's and bellini's work visuall stunning, i find them both a little boring and one note after i get over the initial awe of their skill. I prefer conceptually sound art that evokes thought rather then amazing technical work. i suppose it's my own personal preference but i'll leave it at that.
No comments:
Post a Comment