Wednesday, May 16, 2012

The Effect of War on Art


            Dada and surrealism both changed the way art was not only created but the way it was perceived as well. Both Dada and surrealism challenged authority, the academy, and the nature of art. Dada artists were critiquing politics, war, and the bourgeois society. Surrealism was also critiquing the bourgeois society with Marxist and Freudian influences. Dada changed the concept of art because a lot of the art was created with the use of chance. The artwork being created with the use of chance it is not completely reflective of the individual artist. This had never been seen before, thus changing the concept of art. Surrealism changed the concept of art because we are seeing a big interest in social, sexual, and cultural values. The subconscious and dreams were also a big influence to Surrealism.
            Looking at the Surrealist artwork The Phenomenon of Ecstasy by Salvador Dali we can immediately see that the content is like nothing we have ever seen before. Rather than painting a canvas Dali chose to put together pre-existing photos into a photomontage. Surrealist artists began to look toward photography as a more “objective” form of art. We can see that this photomontage is sexually driven and has a dream like sense to it. We can see that Dali was influenced by Sigmund Freud when creating this artwork due to its interest in sex, the subconscious, and being in a dream-like state. The Phenomenon of Ecstasy seems to be based around sexual obsession and the subconscious. The pictures Dali chose to use are mostly cropped and close up photos of female faces though there are some smaller images of other fairly random things such as ears and a chair. This content is definitely not conventional or something that would have been approved of by the academy. Dali chose to separate these photos using thick black lines rather than making the photos overlap like they would in a collage. Surrealist and Dada artists both changed the concept of art due to their ideas of collage, photomontage, and “ready made” sculpture. No longer are the artists using solely there paint and canvas but are now using pre-existing materials such as pictures. The forms that we see in Surrealist and Dada artwork are at times hard to identify because many are forms coming from the artist’s subconscious. We also are starting to see some more geometric forms as well.
            In regards to Duchamp’s “readymades” I feel as if it could possibly be considered artwork however that is somewhat of a stretch. I don’t think the artist who buys the object should get credit for the object. The reason I feel that way is because the artist who bought the object did not create the object or come up with the idea of the object they just bought it and called it their sculpture. That makes me think that anyone could buy anything and consider it to be their own sculpture and take credit for it. 

4 comments:

  1. You have some nice thoughts. I think it's interesting to consider how by this point, Dada artists like Duchamp were not only referring to artistic tradition (and the Academy) but also the avant-garde itself. By the time you hit the early 20th century, the avant-garde has been around enough that this approach to art has become ripe enough for irony (see our Challenge of the A-G text, p. 229).

    -Prof. Bowen

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am curious as to if you liked Dali's montage? After all in the end we can learn about the art but what it says to us or does to us is really more important. I think this era of change in art is all happening sort of fast its as if the impressionists lit a fire and then it took off in every direction imaginable. The culmination is Duchamp and his question What is Art? We still ask that question today. I still see “art” that I think is pure excrement yet people in NY rave and get all head up over it, and I see crafts relegated to just that “crafts” deserving of a place much higher. I don’t think we will ever all agree on what is and what is not art it has become too malleable and I think we can thank the Dada's for that. I will again say this section has really left me wishing we could have discussed all of this in person its so much more interesting than it seems when just reading.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with you in that I don't feel that the buyer of the readymade art pieces should be credited from them. What I feel they could be credited for is putting the pieces in a new light. The art that I credit to Duchamp isn't the objects he chose, but what they did with those objects to make us think about them differently.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think artists who use "readymade" objects are often times using them to represent ideas or concepts, sometimes I guess people take credit for them, but changing something to make it fit their ideas and concepts doen't make it the same object it was. It added a new purpose and meaning for the object. So, I think they could be considered art, maybe they should not take credit for the "readymade" objects itself. This is because I personally think ideas and concepts are considered art if they are shown through materialized things, including "readymade" objects.

    ReplyDelete