Each artist was forced to decide which tools he was going to use, and while I definitely do not think that the artists had to decide the approach and style they were going to use in their paintings, it was definitely an subconscious, predetermined method to each of their paintings. Each made the decision regarding the color scheme they were going to use, whether to create a three or two dimensional picture, and what kind of paints they felt would best represent the image they hoped to portray.
And, most importantly, how have they described their moves? Be specific.
Each artist describes his moves as though it is the unchangeable way in which he sees the tree. For example, I don't believe that the artist who saw the tree as a piece of architecture CHOSE to see the tree as a piece of architecture. Instead, his painting of the tree reflected the architectural image he saw, and he simply stated the steps he was taking to make sure his art reflected his perceived image of the tree. The same goes for all of the others; I don't feel as though the artists chose which "moves" he was going to incorporate. Each simply described exactly what he was doing, and in doing this, his perception of the tree was reflected in his moves.
How could you characterize their styles, and what impact does that have on you (an audience member)?
Each artist self-characterizes his styles in the following ways: 1. architectural structure 2. full of life and personality/vitality 3. detailed study/portrait of trunk 4. bony structure/growth pattern/bursts out of the ground. This shows me the countless different ways that one object (analogous to one topic in writing) can be approached and analyzed.
No comments:
Post a Comment