Friday, April 20, 2012
Post-Modern Synthesis P.2 T.5
What stands out most in a picture? What makes a painting so interesting to look at? Is it the way that the colors jump out from the canvas? Is the artist skilled enough to realize these thoughts and put them on their work? All of these questions come up when comparing the ideas of the thinker and the painter, which can almost be glommed together. Why were Pollock and Warhol influenced so by Freud? What did Freud have to offer? It is in this thinker’s opinion that the artists Pollock and Warhol intended to make their art a thoughtful piece of work on their own. They aimed to make an art piece an actual intellectual stimulus for the passerby. I believe that their idolization of or simply the inspiration they took from Freud was a very essential element to the construction of their masterpieces. Some of them may have been simple, like the soup can that Warhol painted, or the many lined painting that Pollack made, but both of them serve a purpose: to get the observer thinking. I have just done something they wanted: I made you think about what they created. This is why Freud influenced these artists. They wanted people to think about their creations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe heart of this Synthesis is squashed out in the same sadness that entrenches the influence of any Artist without true inspiration. Although, cleverly presented in a refreshing style that must be appraised as just that, some sort of originality befitting the timepiece, the overall work itself lacks any real depth or perception that must be included in a working Synthesis. A well-written paper or even presented speech will force the audience to question their own beliefs, their values, or the nature of the world that surrounds us all, not shove such questions in a vaguely construed maelstrom of inquiries. However, such a maelstrom could have been calmed and the true strength of the author's ideas could have come to light through such an act of strength in writing, but, no. The maelstrom still exists. The questions are left vaguely summed up in eight words. Nothing meaningful is accomplished. To calm a maelstrom with the sentence, "They wanted people to think about their creations",is just not the correct manner or mechanism to complete this task. The brief manner in which the actual content is addressed, and the suggesting that somehow Freud's influence on artists was absolute and not simply a choice of each individual artist to take what they might from the world, causes the Synthesis to somewhat miss the mark of the original prompt. And, if the argument is to be made that this comment itself is a pondering of the very questions produced and addressed, it is with assurance that can be described the very opposite. A true post-modern zeitgeist would create a paper that would produce several different ending thought patterns, the questions themselves could be handled in such a way that even they themselves may be put under scrutiny and handles with perspective. In summation, although this Synthesis is out of the ordinary, and ATTEMPTS to relay the post-modern zeitgeist with an interesting style, it presents little to no true information, leading the reader not pondering the Freudian mind, but rather the coherence of the essay itself.
ReplyDelete