In my opinion, painting can be anything that has had paint applied to its surface. Painting is similar to other forms of creative expression such as drawing, but is its own specific category in which paint is used rather than charcoal or graphite. The difference between painting and other such categories is the inclusion of paint, regardless of the technique or intent. I believe that painting does not necessarily have to be two dimensional, it could include tangible shapes or objects if they further push the artist's intent. A painting does on some level require a frame or boundary to exist, even if that includes the whole object which is painted. If an artist wished to paint a whole house for instance, the physical boundaries of the house would act as a frame for the artwork/painting.
Must painting be graphic in nature? Elaborate with at least 2 examples.
I don't believe that a painting must have a graphic or figurative nature. Many paintings do make use of figuration to tell a story or give some sense of narrative but this can also be accomplished through abstract paintings of expression, such as a work of Jackson Pollock. Rather than using a paintbrush and canvas in a traditional manner, he flings paint onto a canvas to create deep rooted human expression in a non-figurative style. Another example is Robert Delaunay's work which makes use of natural shapes and bold colors in order to create abstract paintings that give the viewer a connection to nature.
Does the act of painting necessarily result in a painting? Are the two mutually inclusive? Explain.
I believe that one can paint, without necessarily creating a painting. For instance, painting could be a very small part of a larger project in which a section of a sculpture is painted but the artist's intent is to create a sculptural piece rather than a three dimensional painting. For me, the classification of a painting greatly relies upon the artist's intent and methods of incorporating paint.
Does painting serve as the basis for other forms of art or stand on its own? Does it matter that we make a distinction?
I don't believe that we need to make this distinction because painting has such a wide range of applications. If we try to categorize an art form too distinctly, we may pigeonhole the medium in a way that doesn't leave room for alternative uses or methods.
Find three examples you feel best exemplify PAINTING with captions (artist, medium, date, size) and an explanation on WHY you chose these.
I chose these three paintings because they all have differing levels of figuration, the Jackson Pollock is a classic abstract painting with no figuration. The Van Gogh is somewhere between abstract and figurative, using aspects of both styles. The Da Vinci is quite figurative, made to represent the world accurately and realistically.
Vincent Van Gogh, The Starry Night, June 1889
Leonardo Da Vinci, Mona Lisa, 1503
No comments:
Post a Comment