All
of the seemingly simple things we see in the natural world are underlain by
complex phenomena. As we learn by "taking apart” we come to analyze “complex” vs. “simple” in the phenomena we observe.
I
sit on the MFA European paintings Gallery, an imposing room of heroic
proportions surrounded by dramatic paintings of the late Renaissance. Each
painting is filled with detail, sparkling with movement. Each painting provides
challenging images of great depth, perspective, and visual insight.
As a
museum patron I am asked to focus on each painting individually. But I expect I
am also responsible somehow to take in all these images at once, like some kind
of ornate circus. Why else would they be organized the way they are in this
room?
Immediately
my mind is drawn to the opposite--or is it the opposite-- scenario? The beach
at Reid State Park on George's island, Maine. There the waves crash or roll
gently onto a mile-long strip of sand, their noise a thousand concerts, their
breaking arcs a baroque empire of color and contrast. This is where I first
discussed with Victor the question of blank horizon vs. busy wall.
Are
the waves on the beach and the pictures on the wall different? Or are do they
both share similar qualities? Both are replete with images and sensed impulses,
noisy even as they are silent.
And
there at Reid I pick up my head and stare at the horizon. I search for a swell,
a cloud, a bird, an island. I see only the lonely horizontal of the spot where
sky meets the ocean. That place is simplicity itself. A straight line against
an open space, the bisecting signal between two great panels of color. Yet in
its silence it is somehow alive with the noise of life and a living planet. The
noise I feel (I cannot hear it) is a visual noise as well, borne in the tension
between two great masses, the atmosphere above and the water below.
So I
ask, which is "busier," the horizon or the wall packed with art?
Which is more peaceful? Which one more pleasing to the senses? Aside from their
major difference (one is the product of human endeavor and the other a purely
natural phenomenon), how do we distinguish between the two?
Which
of our senses do we engage when observing, comparing the two? What kind of
meaning, if any, do we invest in them? Is there a value to one above or
different from the other?
Yes this post makes sense to us because it was written with great fluidity and language that is easily understandable. You are trying to explain the connection between are and science that takes place in the MFA. Well when you are in the MFA you are there to observe and analyze the pictures in front of you. Likewise, at the beach you are absorbing the beauty of the horizon and documenting it through this blog post, through the series of questions at the end talking about natural phenomenon, human endeavors, etc. It directly connects art and science. Through the observation of art you analyze the aesthetics of your surroundings. I would add a picture of the two contrasting views that you are discussing.
ReplyDeleteSammy Nassif
Alli Armstrong
Meg Shepro
Alana Rockoff
Both of these posts made sense logically; the language used was both thoughtful and relatable. It's clear that the purpose of both of these posts was to convey the relationship between art and science,and how both elements are essentially inseparable when you delve a little deeper. In both of these works, observation is the opening factor. The observation of artworks and nature is where we begin. Our goal of documenting is met through the description of the artworks and natural phenomena, and in particular, the second post's special attention to the WAY we document our findings (i.e. limiting to a certain number of characters). The analyses of both situations are first, analyzing an aesthetic experience in terms of both scientific and artistic examples; and second, analyzing a work of art using a scientific process. The process of aesthetics is realized in both of these posts by representing subjects that are aesthetically pleasing as well as offering a sense of how one might respond or analyze either situation. In relation to Darwin's "Tangled Bank", which praises nature's instinctive and effortless kind of artistry, the first post addresses directly what he describes through the description of Reid's Beach. However, while an artist himself might create an artwork with significantly more effort, the elements and details that he includes can create a sort of "tangled web" as well. We all thought that the posts were quite thorough, and did not need any supplemental work.
ReplyDeleteAbby Danowitz
Elyse DaSilva
Michelle Grbic
Jake Denike
We think the "Blank Horizon" post is very straightforward and was very personable, but the "Solving Problems" seemed a little more confusing. Both stories touch upon the need to critically think and go beyond the first impressions of things. In "Solving Problems," each wood carving was "decomposed" in the sense that it was described in simpler components. This is similar to what needs to be done in the laboratory.More complex concepts need to be taken apart in order to be understood. Science and art are essentially the same in that they both take complexities and break them down into simple forms in order to truly understand their function or message. "Solving Problems" describes the picture and the visual impressions that it portrays. "Blank Horizon" explains how viewing art and nature are both pleasing to the eye. As the writer, we would add more opportunities for readers to sense the same experience as what is described. We each have different aesthetics, so we would all experience events differently.
ReplyDeleteRani Pan
Carina Cruz
Edo Ohayon
Neil Browne
Nick Schroth
How we feel about visual stimuli, I feel like it heavely depends on how peaceful we feel inside. I've been to the MFA quite a few things, and sometimes I feel overwhemelmed by all the ornate works in the European galleries, and more at peace at a more spread gallery, usually the Ancient Greece one. When it comes to contemplating the world in a fuller way, using all the senses, where there's no premeditated angle or focus, and we have to create a perspective for ourselves, or none at all, that's complexity. I think both can be as busy or tangled, but it is easier to come to the conclusion that the scene at Reid is more peaceful since it's easier to connect to nature.
ReplyDeleteAlejandra Rodriguez