Spelunking the Universe
Posts tagged Art and Architecture
Museums and Architecture Final Paper: Bilbaoblivion
2 years ago
by Rico Penguin
in General
When you walk into the art and museum section of your local library there are a few common themes you will likely always find, collections of classical works, the impact of a particular era of art, and the positive or negative effect of Museum Architecture on the world of Art. I am particularly interested in the latter of these, in the existence of a phenomenon that while not recent has been given a very recent cause. An inevitable destructive force that would bring the end of art as we know it. Seeing as no great event goes without being labeled I’ve coined a term for this destructive force: "Bilbaoblivion". To the astute reader it sounds very much like a museum built by Frank Gehry and indeed this is not on accident. Bilbaoblivion is the inevitable disinterest in the art held within a museum and the greater desire to examine the architecture of the structure itself, it is the gradual decay of art and the construction of museums as sarcophagi for the very art they were built to hold.
In the debate over this there are two basic fields of architecture, one credited with delaying or deterring the Bilbaoblivion and the other credited with bringing the end. The first group, affectionately titled "The Kahn Style" does not only include the works of Louis Kahn but also those like him, creating subtle structures that do little, if anything, more than house the art within them. The second group, is titled "The Guggenheim Style" which includes Frank Lloyd Wright, the aforementioned Frank Gehry and all others who build museums of extravagance.
The term "age old problem" rarely fits as well as it does on this particular subject. Over 200 years ago the first proclamations of the Bilbaoblivion arose. With a collection of over 500 paintings, a structure that was previously a fortress and even a palace, the Louvre is one of the most extravagant and easily the most widely known museum in the world.
Figure 1.1 In fact "Louvre"+"huge" on Google returns 1.3 million results. Louvre alone returns 2.34 Million with almost as many unique images.
Even before any extensions or work were done on the Louvre it was a massive structure, which is to be expected of a palace. All that glitters is not gold however, at least in the eyes of critics. What the Louvre asks of art enthusiasts is "just what is it doing best?" To answer this we must first look at just what a Museum must do to be doing its job well.
1. Display art well (McClellan, 56).
2. Absolutely without architectural adornment (McClellan, 71).
3. Nothing may attract the eye of the visitor from the objects therein displayed (McClellan,71).
It is difficult to define just how one displays art well, however I will assume that by doing the latter two rules you will thusly accomplish the first. Externally it is painfully obvious that the Louvre is indeed not bland, centuries of various delicate tastes have left it a structure of the utmost beauty. During the day it tantalizes visitors with its many forms and structures, not the least of which the massive Pyramid entrance constructed in front of the museum (in image above). During the night the Louvre is a shimmering monument that demands the eye of passersby. So as it stands, the Louvre has indeed failed at the second rule of a properly functioning museum. The next question we must answer is whether or not the museum distracts the visitor from the objects within.
Figure 1.2 Unexpectedly the inside of the Louvre is almost unexplainably modest.
While once again we have elegant archways and beautiful roofing overall the facilities are quite well restrained. However it remains to be answered if the sheer massive size of this structure creates an aura of structural interest. In Figure 1.2 you can see the hallway shrinking dramatically as it travels off into the horizon. Unfortunately for the Louvre however even with this not taken into account the marble finished pillars and embellished archways do indeed draw the eye away from the artwork.
So if the Louvre does indeed fail the latter two stipulations, it must then fail the first. So then does has this structure, that went from 700 pieces to over 35,000 (including the Mona Lisa) and has survived for over 2 centuries, destroyed art as we know it (louvre.fr)?
Globally the answer is no. No conventional entertainment medium in the last 50 years has grown, for the exception of one, The Art Museum. The attendance at museums has risen from 22 million people in the 60′s to a mind boggling 100 million, that is just under one third of the entire US population globally visiting museums (McClellan, tufts.edu). Perhaps coincidentally, the year before this great burst of interest in Museums a particularly famous structure opened its doors. The Solomon R. Guggenheim in New York.
Figure 2.1 The Solomon R. Guggenheim by Frank Lloyd Wright is commonly cited as "one of the most significant architectural icons of the 20th century"
Looking back at our previous rules for a properly functioning museum, and ignoring the fact that the previously mentioned Louvre is the most visited and highest rated museum in the world, we can immediately see that the Guggenheim does not sit well within the status quo. Interestingly for the exception of the labeling on the front of the museum externally the structure is relatively reserved in the context of ornamentation. However the third clause directly conflicted with the goals of Wright when building the museum. When he was building the Museum Wright had the concept of a the Tower of Babel, which (to make a long story short) was a structure that inevitably lead the heavens to spread humanity and complicate their communication. Wright wanted to build a reverse Tower of Babel, a building that instead trickles down from the heavens and helps unite those within it in a common way. The spiral of the structure was in hopes that the museum goers would notice those across from them examining art, an action that most certainly "attract the eye of the visitor from the objects therein displayed " (McClellan, 78).
Figure 2.2 The rings created by the museums build construct segments that Wright hoped would draw ones eye to the common museum goers.
It would be the success of the Guggenheim in New York and the growing interest in Art Museums globally that would slowly begin to raise the collective brows of all city leaders whose funding bubbles had burst from various markets crashing.
One such town in 1997 was suffering not unlike modern day Detroit, what was once a bustling industrial city had watched the market dry up and the industry flee. Unfortunately for all involved; people cannot disjoint themselves from their livelihoods as quickly as the businesses they once worked for. The town’s name was (and indeed is) Bilbao, the building to be constructed is the now famous (perhaps infamous) Bilbao Guggenheim constructed by Frank Gehry.
The initial reasoning behind the construction is admirable enough, the city and provincial governments of the region were very concerned about unemployment (Gausch & Zulaika, 174). When the construction of the Bilbao went underway the hope was that it would bring in roughly 450,000 people in the first year of tourism. The result would be a nice gain in businesses and hopefully a reduction in joblessness. What they got instead was 1.3 million people and 219 million dollars in revenue in the first year. It was such an overwhelming success that the phenomenon was given its own unique name "The Bilbao Effect" (McClellan, 53). It is quite easy to see why after glancing at the structure.
Figure 3.1 Reflecting perfectly upon the water it seems to reach into both reality and surrealism.
With all great successes comes great criticisms and the Guggenheim in Bilbao would certainly be taking the brunt. Upon its completion there was a backlash of Art Enthusiasts who felt that structures such as the Bilbao relayed the wrong message. "Buildings don’t make museums; art and only art does." Similar in tone to the previous 3 rules of a properly functioning museum, this or small variations of this are what comprise the major complaints of the Bilbao (McClellan, 55).
So on the topic of the rules we examine the Bilbao and see how it compares to a properly functioning museum. Interestingly it doesn’t contain outside ornamentation, the structure itself is not unlike the Wright Museum in its smooth (albeit steel instead of concrete) lines. The entire structure is fluid and devoid of any awkward extras such a statues or monuments.
The next question is about internals, will we find endless ornamentation drawing the eye away from the works within?
Figure 3.2 Bleach white walls and an unassuming concrete floor enclose an eye catching piece of art.
While the roof is not flat and featureless it is bleach white which helps lessen the effect of the intricate twists and turns while optimizing the light output. Not necessarily the best possible option, however hardly the museum exhibit nightmare it is often credited as being.
So what is proper? This question has apparently had one real definitive answer and a particularly popular physical example. Louis Kahn’s Kimbell Museum, a structure that has garnered seemingly universal praise as the perfect example of a museum. While easily in itself a monumental structure, it almost magically, achieves an equilibrium between the surrounding environment, the objects, traditions, and modernity. It is these qualities, and likely much more, that brings many people to the works of Louis Kahn when attempting to provide visual examples for how a museum is properly constructed (Loud,*).
Figure 4.1 The outside of the Kimbell Museum is modest and entirely without ornamentation.
The Kimbell Museum quickly answers the question of ornamentation outside of the structure with a resounding no. Indeed the outside of the building is clean and consistent, each barrel vaulted corridor matches up nicely with its neighbors to create a smooth flowing appearance. With the finalization and opening of the Kimbell Museum Kahn had set the stage for what is widely considered the epitome of museum architecture.
So with the outside of the structure quite devoid of distractions, from a technical standpoint, let us now travel within.
Figure 4.2 The innards of the museum are reflective and spacious.
Interestingly the response I got from all parties inquired (Seven if you were curious) to the following question came up the same: "Does the above image exemplify a structure that would create no interest in anything but the artwork?" In each case when I asked this question the response I received was "No". Now it will not be said that the Kimbell Museum is not a magnificent museum, nor will it be said that it does not do what it does incredibly well. However as a structure it is remarkably similar in mentality and design as those of its supposed inverses.
When comparing the Kimbell Museum to the Wright Guggenheim you will immediately notice some striking similarities. Externally both structures are made primarily of concrete, both contain many rounded edges, and both contain sky lighting.
Methodically they are incredibly similar. As stated before the Wright Guggenheim was built with the thought of a reverse tower of Babel, a sort of religious monument in reverse. Kahn himself was inspired during a trip around the world where he experienced firsthand the grand nature of monumental architecture. He was looking to build structures that stood the test of time, that aged not like a fine wine, but like a towering mountain. Endless in their grace and in their form (Nathaniel Kahn,*). So in either case you had large concrete structures rooted strongly in either real or mythological monuments.
Admittedly the connections between the Bilbao Museum and that of the Kimbell would be far more of a stretch to reach. However it takes very little time in the World of Kahn to know that he would have enjoyed the Bilbao. Kahn himself is quoted as saying that a museums purpose as a building is to delight and serve, to not disregard our modern technological and engineering advancements and to take the old traits of domes, vaults, and arches and to place them as giant sculptural forms of the skeleton frame (Kahn,28). Here is a man, long before the Bilbao, describing it and structures like it to a haunting degree. Frank Gehry not only physically build a structure to match these terms but also used the technology of the time to combine a practice millenniums old with technology that is years old.
While he has had countless memorable quotes over his lifetime, perhaps my favorite of Kahn’s is "I merely defend, because I admire, the architect who possesses the will to grow with many angles of our development. For such a man finds himself far ahead of his fellow workers (Kahn,31)". Kahn was not a man of stale repetitiveness, he knew that if nobody ever did anything new we’d never know what we were missing.
While there are similarities between these structures there are likewise differences. The Kimbell Museum is entirely one floor, which provides the Museum goers with a more continuous transition through the works with less downtime. Although an extension is in the works to add a standalone extension to the Kimbell museum that will be multi leveled (Dillard,*). Likewise there is little in the way of emphasis on any particular direction or piece of work. The same cannot be said for either Guggenheim as both are multi level structures and in the case of the Wright Guggenheim there is a very linear direction one can travel.
Another place in which these structures differ is that the Kimbell Museum is free as long as you are checking out the permanent pieces. The Wright Guggenheim costs between 15-18 dollars and the Bilbao costs 7-11.2 dollars. So in this sense it may be the Kimbell that is providing a more consistent space to house and display the works, as cheaper tends to recruit more visitors.
Indeed admissions is an unfortunate sign of the harsh reality that is global economics, most structures cannot survive on good will alone and it is the job of the Museum to attract visitors to raise revenue. If a facility does not do this it will not reasonably be able to continue existing, who then wins when art is left to age in darkness?
It can be said that if the goal of a museum is solely to provide the art to the art viewer then perhaps it is the extravagance of these structures that provides the most proper way possible. Historian Henry-Russell Hitchcock is quoted as saying "A Museum’s purposes are best served, indeed can only be truly served, if it is … entertaining and appealing … the museum … belongs in the field of democratic adult education. Its public ought to be a voluntary one. Therefore, it must practice a judicious showmanship and not be ashamed to entertain in order to teacher (Russel-Hitchcock,86)." It would be unfair, and unrealistic, of me to say that Hitchcock is the final word on what makes a museum, indeed it is on the shoulders of every individual to themselves decide what it is to be a museum to them.
Even the best possible existing example at creating a structure that attracts but does not detract falls short of its goal. Reflective floors and monumental construction put the Kimbell museum in the same boat as its kin. But is this even a problem? In the movie, "My Architect" Nathaniel Kahn the son of Louis Kahn interviews many of the old friends and family of his late Father. A common theme came up during their discussions of Kahn. "He was an Artist."
Is this not true of all Museums? If someone were to paint a building, would that painting not be called art? If that painting is art then one would assume that the things within it have an artistic value. When two pieces of art in a Museum reside near one another, do we blame the more viewed of the two for being too extravagant? Perhaps. However few would demand it be censored because of its intrinsically more interesting qualities. Those that do would not humor similar proclamations about their own works. So then the Museum becomes another piece of art, encompassing all the Art within and around it. It is no more the fault of the Museum than of the Mona Lisa to the works around it.
The greater the pieces of art in a collection the greater the amount of visitors a museum will acquire and with that a large sum to be ascertained. To have a museum of grand nature does not appear to beckon the end of art, but instead a new age of art exhibition. Immense works that demand those nearby to enter. The Bilbaoblivion, like all harks to the end, has been proclaimed with each new unveiling of a structure that differs from conventional beliefs. It is a response that is no different from historical criticisms of works of art and indeed it should be no different as it is complaining about the same thing.
We as a whole fear change, however without it we are left with a dry and predictable world. We find the unfair paradigm of critics demanding museums restrain themselves from extravagance, while on the same breath reprimanding these humble structures when they do not acquire enough viewers or improperly showcasing their works. In the end it is just a fantasy, there is and may likely never be a museum that can accomplish all the goals of a properly functioning museum.
Though even with this opposition the emergence of this new breed of Museum has not faltered. The proverbial wings have spread, and with the art museum population growing each year it is in the interest of every artist that they remain so. For regardless of what critics may feel the job of a museum is, it must bring in money or else it will become nothing more than a vault.
Bibliography
Patricia Cummings Loud, The Art Museums of Louis I. Kahn (Durham: Duke University Press, 1989)
Maria V. Gomez, "Reflective Images: The Case of Urban Regeneration in Glasgow and Bilbao," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 22 (March 1998): 106-21
Louis I. Kahn, Robert C. Twombly, Louis Kahn: essential texts (Edition: illustrated Published by W. W. Norton & Company, 2003) 28 and 31.
Thomas Jessop, Journal d’un vorage a Paris en Septembre-Octobre 1820 (Translated) (Paris, 1928), 28.
Henry-Russel Hitchcock, "Museums in the Modern World," Architectural Review 86 (September 1939): 148
Andrew McClellan, The Art Museum from Boullée to Bilbao Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007. pp. 2, 56, 78, 103
Andrew McClellan, Art Vs. Architecture, Museum designers wrestle with an age-old question: Who’s the star—the building or its contents? http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/winter2008/features/artarchitecture.html Accessed: Monday, May 11, 2009
My Architect. Dir. Orson Welles. Perfs. Nathaniel Kahn, Louis Kahn. Louis Kahn Project Inc., 2003.
Dillard, Betty. "Kimbell Art Museum reveals $70 million Renzo Piano espansion designs" Fort Worth Business Press 2008. 6/9/2009 <http://www.fwbusinesspress.com/display.php?id=8916>.
Images brought to you By:
Figure 1.1 – http://www.davidedc.com/photos/photoBunker/Louvre3-Big.jpg
Figure 1.2 – http://pix.alaporte.net/pub/d/4265-1/Inside+the+Louvre.JPG
Figure 2.1 – http://www.ny.com/museums/images/guggenheim-lg.jpg
Figure 2.2 – Your Lecture Notes
Figure 3.1 – http://contrainformation.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/bilbao.jpg
Figure 3.2 – http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9V80FUjOCNE/Sfl2JxRyyvI/AAAAAAAAACo/EudcBNyj4Xc/s1600-h/galeria_audiovisual.jpg
Figure 4.1 – http://www.texaswhitehouse.com/images/kimbell3.jpg
Figure 4.2 – Your Lecture Notes
Disclaimer:
This paper was written in good faith (always wondered what that means) and all effort was put towards citing and citing properly, in any and all cases where this may have been missed (I doubt there are any) it was entirely a mistake and the original speaking parties are herein granted full credit for their comments.
In not so serious business, this was an incredibly pleasant experience and while the paper did shave a few years off my life with stress I got to see many wonderful images of some of my favorite Architects. Sometimes you need to take the bad to get some good I suppose.
If you take out all the images the paper should be between 10 and 11 pages long (not counting citations or this stuff), and Swiss Cheese is an amazing cheese. That is all.
The Art Vs. The Architecture.
2 years ago
by Rico Penguin
in General
Seeing as I am no longer seeing my food moments after eating it I feel it is better now than later to update you on my upcoming essay. With structures like Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim I’m going to ask the question of just which triumphs, does an exquisite museum take away from the artwork within?
I’m going to be examining the evolution of the environment and its connection with the ever increasing eloquence in museum construction. Where once you merely needed to look like a roman structure to grasp the attention of passers by we now are in a world surrounded by flashing lights and endless stimulation.
I’m hoping to prove through supporting evidence that structures like the Guggenheim are necessities when attempting to bring in viewers (which ultimately fuel the survival of the Museum). Hopefully the entire 10 page essay should be finished by next Monday, at the very least I’ll have 5 pages done. Good times indeed.
Return of the Renaissance: A Titillating Timeline
2 years ago
by Rico Penguin
in General
For those that noticed a lack of update yesterday. I blame Thursday’s Bird Flu image…it obviously had a part to play in the event. At any rate I’ve decided that today’s update will have a nice series of timeline images to support the data. So to begin here is the first clean and simple timeline for our series of events.
Quite simply we have 1400 which is effectively the beginning of the Renaissance, 1500 which is an important check point and then 1550 which is effectively the end of the renaissance. To remember these just remember 100 from 1400 and half of that to the end. So 1400, 1500, and 1550. Not that you should really need tricks to remember these three dates. First we’ll move onto one of the easier dates to remember, it is a competition that is said to chime in the beginning of the Renaissance. That considered I’m sure you know basically when it happened.
So in 1401, 1 year after the beginning of the Renaissance two rather famous artists competed for the doors at the Florence Baptistery. Now you might notice in the image I ‘may’ have not spelled it right but its close enough and I corrected myself here. If memory serves the competition was between a fellow by the name of Brunelleschi and another by the name of Ghiberti. You can tell these particular people are important because their names are in the word dictionary.
The one on the left is Brunelleschi and the one on the right is Ghiberti. Not to spoil the end of the competition but Ghiberti took the title and ran…to finish the doors. What came of that was the following.
Frankly I felt by the end of it the doors didn’t look anywhere near as interesting as the pieces entered into the competition but that is personal feelings I suppose. Speaking of Brunelleschi however in a quarter of a century he will have discovered something that puts these doors to shame.
In 1425, 25 years (basically) after the competition for the doors Brunelleschi discovered Linear Perspective, something that is so super fantastic I think it redeems him for any lost competition. Essentially it is the trick that makes an image look 3 dimensional, if you ever look at something and it appears to be 3 dimensional you are looking at something via Linear Perspective. Indeed even in the real world you are taking two dimensional pictures with your eyes and converting them via this trick…but that’s a talk for another day. Before we move on to more times lets look at some paintings that use Linear Perspective and some that might not (the latter is only if I find some that will be on the exam that do not).
This is Masaccio’s Tribute Money painting which shows linear perspective. You’ll notice how the building on the right slowly falls back at an angle to create a feeling of depth and space. Also the man in the background is smaller than the men in the foreground.
You will find Linear Perspective no more methodically used than in images with Jesus, be he dying or living they want to make sure your eyes are shoved full force into his form. This particular one was made by Masaccio as well. He loves him a good Jesus painting.
Fra Filippo Lippi who is not important enough to have his name in word made the above image of Madonna and Baby Jesus. The Linear perspective is a little more subtle and found in the frame around the picture. This friar apparently wasn’t very good at Celibacy and had a kid who went on to become the teacher of someone very famous. We’ll move on to that later when I have my notes, I don’t remember offhand…lets place a bet of a dollar with myself of Donatello. It’s a 1 in 4 chance.
Not that you are curious but it has been 6 hours since I started writing this…I get sidetracked easily. Regardless lets move on. Now that we have some good examples of Linear Perspective lets move on to another important period on the timeline. Much like how Linear Perspective was discovered a quarter of a century after the beginning of the Renaissance indeed another 25 years later a very important birth was…well birthed!
That’s right, in 1452, essentially 25 years later (close enough for jazz) you have the birth of the most famous artist in the entire world. So much so that most people don’t even say his real name and yet they still know it is him. Leonardo Di Vinci, literally “Leonardo of Venice".”, is commonly just called Di Vinci which would mean that absolutely anyone who lives in Venice is being credited with his works. Fascinating stuff. When thinking about Leonardo we need to establish his works…or at least the ones I’ll be tested on.
Much like me, Leonardo is (or was rather) extremely picky about details, whereas other artists might just draw and not concern themselves with every detail Leonardo would often not finish a work (such as the above Adoration of the Magi) and yet what is funny that even his incomplete works are still worth more money than anyone I know can afford to invest.
The Vitruvian Man is one of my favorite works in all of human history. Interestingly (a word you’ll see me use a lot today) Leonardo wrote in mirror because he was left handed. It’s amazing to me I can barely write in the proper direction much less in perfect reverse.
This would be Madonna on the Rocks, which is easy to remember because it is Madonna…on the rocks. Likely an alcoholic drink on top of a famous painting.
This particular one found its way into a plaster cast in my own living room back in the day. If you don’t know that this is the Last Supper don’t feel bad, but do know by some accounts you are likely destined to burn in hell. But good news is that apartments are very cheap there and I’m sure all in all it can’t be that bad. But back on subject.
This is the most famous painting in the world…if you don’t know that it is called the Mona Lisa I’m pretty sure you might be in danger cognitively.
So as with all things the Renaissance has some wonderfully spaced events. Just as Leonardo was born 25 years after the discovery of Linear Perspective which was 25 years after the beginning of the Renaissance AND the Brunelleschi Vs. Ghiberti Florence Baptistery Battle, we know how the next event 25 years after Leonardo’s birth.
The Birth of Michelangelo, not only the best of the Turtles from TMNT he was also one of the four most famous artists in the world. So lets see some of the popular Michelangelo works that I’ll need to know and you as well if you are taking a Renaissance Course.
This sculpture is called the Vatican Pieta…I think…regardless it is a fantastic piece that looks very much like an actual pair of people sitting. If you are looking to become world famous in the arts making some form of Jesus dead will bring fans to you in throngs. He really needs more people happy to see him alive…poor fella.
Michelangelo’s David is also a very popular statue that has the hands of a golem. He was scaled so that when looking at him as you should (from roughly shoulder height to his feet), that his hands and head will look absolutely normal. Apparently they actually do…coolness.
Michelangelo’s Moses…to me he looks more like Poseidon but regardless it is some amazing work. That beard is certainly enviable.
So apparently the Medici were these rich mofo’s who made all their money off wool, with that money they were the ones that essentially fueled the Renaissance or something of that nature. Regardless this piece by Michelangelo is called Lorenzo de’ Medici which would tell me that it was made for one of the Medici or for an entire bank. It has a sister piece that looks the same but is mirrored to a good degree.
As we move along through Michelangelo’s works we start to get closer and closer to his pinnacle work, the one that above all else really toppled the rest. This is called the Last Judgement, and it looks a good deal like the next great work.
This is the Sistine Chapel, this is where everything comes together. Now that we’ve hit this and previously discussed the Mona Lisa I think it is time to update the timeline.
So as you would expect we have another 25 years since the last big event. 25 Years after the Birth of Michelangelo we have what is known as the High Renaissance. Then roughly 3-6 years after that we have the Mona Lisa and roughly 6 years after that we have the Sistine Chapel! Oh how consistent the Renaissance is. Yes I know the image only says 1503, but it is somewhere between 1503-1506.
How about the other 2 I believe earlier I said “One of the Four Most famous.” If I didn’t I should have when referring to either Leonardo or Michelangelo. But indeed there are two more turtles to unravel before we move on to the lesser known artists of the Renaissance. Not to overwhelm people I will also introduce someone known as Boticelli. If we travel back to the birth of Michelangelo (again 1475), we just need to add 5 years to come up on Boticelli’s three most famous works.
This is called the Primavera, there isn’t much to say other than the fact that this is a Greek/Roman inspired art piece instead of Christian. You’ll notice similarities in his next two works as well.
This is Pallas and The Centaur, I’m pretty sure that Pallas is a reference to Athena. Finally this leads us to likely the most well known of Boticelli’s Greek/Roman pieces.
The Birth of Venus is one that I’ve seen multiple times before this course. The art style of Boticelli certainly doesn’t change very much between the works. However they are all better than I could do.
So now that we have Boticelli out of the way lets move onto the birth of the Third (not in quality but merely in mentioning here) of the Great Four. Raphael born 3 years after Boticelli’s works, which is pretty close to being almost being a perfect double jump from the Birth of Michelangelo. Here is where it gets fun. Guess how long we have to go from the Birth of Raphael to get to the next great piece? 25 Years you say? You’d be exactly right.
25 Years on the dot began the work of the Sistine Chapel. It is a very special number that helps quite a bit. This sets us up pretty well. We only have a few major timeline points and then a throng of other pictures to know. Likewise essentially 25 years after the Birth of Raphael we have a major works of his that should be known. In 1509-1512 we have the construction of the Stanza della Segnatura, which is a name that I’ll be hardpressed to remember during the exam.
It’s an amazing little piece and I like how it has the extra levels of dimension with the woman who almost appears to be leaning off the image. It’s a great illusion.
So that puts us here. Certainly lots to deal with but thankfully we are almost done with the important dates (I’ll be doing an extra update tomorrow especially for left over statues and paintings). The next two events do not happen in the 25 year construct that many of the others can be worked into, that might be because they are depressing events. 10 years after Raphael completes the Stanza, Leonardo Di Vinci died. Perhaps out of sadness, or more likely natural causes, Raphael himself died. So let us complete the timeline and let me go to bed.
So while we still have another 30 years till the ‘end’ of the Renaissance. This will close the timeline. We are still one major artist short, but for whatever reason Donatello is not on the exam for dates. If he is I’ll be sorely unprepared. Who knows maybe tomorrow I’ll look it up and add him too. Have a great night and I hope you enjoyed this intense shock study of the Renaissance.
The Liberal Arts
2 years ago
by Rico Penguin
in General
Well given that this is the day I discuss the Renaissance it would seem only fair to cover a topic that’ll be on the exam next week and is somewhat interesting. I have a strong feeling that the following information might be the initial reasoning behind the concept of the “Lucky 7”.
The initial way to remember this is the terms trivium et en quadrivium. I might be screwing up the conjunction words but essentially this means the three roads and the four roads. Or something of that idea. Essentially these combine to become the four essential arts, the liberal arts, or the arts of the free man.
Apparently when discussing these you should get them in the correct order, otherwise people you are talking to that DO know the correct order will get really smug and we all know how smelly smug can be. The hope today is that we can device a manner that can consistently return the proper order. Firstly remember your numeric order, 3 always comes before 4 (unless alcohol is involved).
The Trivium consists of the Grammar, Dialectic (Logic), and the Rhetoric. Obviously the option of merely remember them is available and you have the simple acronym of GDR. Unfortunately neither list is alphabetical but I do think the general idea is that each leads fluidly into the next. If that is not the case at the very least it can be stereotyped to do so. Everyone knows how helpful stereotypes are (and unfortunately damaging at times).
Grammar would be what you see in modern day, it’s easy to remember because most of the images show a woman with some sort of beating instrument. So just imagine old school Grammar classes where your teacher was just waiting for a way to beat you if you got a D or acted like a Dummy.
Dialectic (Logic) which starts with a D is a term I’ve never had to use before. Now of course you won’t find a philosopher that doesn’t tickle the idea of Logic when discussing the important values in life. After all their entire job is to try and influence people which generally leads to biases and in particular the use of Rhetoric.
Rhetoric is essentially the art of persuasion through language. It’s a popular term in any political debate or discussion but it has a life wide importance. Without a proper understanding of rhetoric you can’t influence people at all, which is not a good thing because there are indeed very important lessons that people need to learn and its not reasonable to assume someone could learn them all strictly through experience.
The Quadrivium consists of Arithmetic, Geometry, Astronomy, and finally Music. I find these four to be far easier to keep in mind and keep in order mainly because they really really lead into one another (Music not included).
Arithmetic is essential to the proper functioning of any civilized human and I’m sure it would be very easy to argue its essential for any human regardless. Moving from Arithmetic to Geometry I’d hope would require no real explanation, essentially they are like Peanut Butter and your favorite complimentary foodstuff.
Geometry is a fantastic field of study that covers shapes and angles both of which have universal implications and are naturally occurring which gives them physical ramifications that are much more solid in the minds of those learning them. When you take Arithmetic and Geometry to their extreme you will reach the field of Astronomy.
Astronomy is my absolutely favorite field of study followed closely by psychology. It is with the aid of Geometry and Arithmetic that we can grasp the otherwise unimaginably large expanse that surrounds us for a seemingly infinite distance. The greatest (literally) beauties that may arguably ever be found can be attributed to this field. While this hardly leads into the next you can take two roads to reach Music. You can either relate it to the harmonic resonance of cosmic noise or just remember its the obscure one in the group.
Music in this case is actually not talking about the hip hop or country but the actual physical use of music. A good example is when people plug the ropes of a catapult, if one resonates with a different pattern than the other you will be launching diagonally. Now that example comes from my professor and I think it ends this post on a wonderfully vivid visual.
How time flies…
2 years ago
by Rico Penguin
in General
It’s actually quite marvelous how quickly a day can pass if you aren’t paying attention. What felt like minutes ago was 7 pm and now I’m look at 11:24. Tomorrow is the beginning of my next quarter and as promised before there will be plenty of fun information. As I often do lets leave you today with some very good time killers for both the mind and the soul (the soul herein being that part of you that likes laughing as opposed to thinking).
For your mind: http://www.damninteresting.com/ – Easily one of the Internets most interesting websites.
For your soul: http://icanhascheezburger.com/ – Easily one of the Internets most enjoyable websites.
I hope these in some way make up for my recent slacking. In another unrelated note that got me excited the Guggenheim museum is in the upcoming movie “The Soloist.” I can’t say the movie will or won’t be good but that is one amazingly beautiful structure.
Edit: For those with a keen sense of buildings will note I actually posted the wrong museum! Ha! The one in the movie is the museum in New York and not the one below. Both made by people named Frank though I believe.
Care of: Raw Art Int
Goodnight all and don’t forget to take a long look at the world around you. It changes so quickly these days it would be a shame to miss something forever.
Psychology of the Arts: Final Exam Questions
2 years ago
by Rico Penguin
in General
It is a crime indeed that this course is being canceled at my college after this quarter but I was blessed with the +1 to hit rolls as well as the chance to take the course. Here are the final two questions to be turned in when we take the final exam (not looking forward to that in particular but I hate exams in general) likewise my answers to the questions.
I cannot stress enough that anyone here should see these movies, if nothing else Il Postino is an amazing movie that is easy to enjoy.
Question 1: About Pablo Neruda and the film Il Postino – The Postman.
Neruda writes about anguish and solitude. “We live in an absurd world, with no sense of society. In such a world a man/woman loses the prime qualities of life and heads toward nothingness.” Are these themes detectable in the movie? What is important in life according to Il Postino? What is the meaning of life?
As I watched the movie I felt that it was not a case that we are inevitably heading towards nothingness but that instead we can if we do not change our ways. The postman had no sense of natural beauty around him, he had no sense of just what he desired most in the world. To him it was more a case of getting out of the land he called home. He didn’t feel understood nor did he understand the importance of the smaller things. He was overlooking the joys of a sunset and merely noticing the unfortunate workload of a fisherman. Essentially spotting a Rose and calling it a weed.
What I established as the important factors in life were the collection of various unique traits his island had. The breeze that traveled along the land and danced within the bushes. The night sky and its endless swath of stars. The dancing of the sea against the shore. The sad fishers nets reaching boat wards to escape the frigged waters. The ring of the church bell crawling across the air and all the other things that inspired him. Of course when everything was said and done there was also the beauty of Beatrice Russo, while easily overlooked it was her passion and grace that lead the postman to desire Poetry as well and to finally see the world for all its graces. As I understood it from the movie, the meaning of life is to live. I don’t recall any exact quote to that point but I’m almost sure I heard them. I think it was ironic that we were examining this movie considering one of its staple characters said the following:
Man has no business with the simplicity or complexity of things. – Pablo Neruda
Question 2: About Akira Kurosawa’s film “Dreams.”
1. Select two dreams and analyze their psychological meaning.
2. Address why Kurosawa thinks “man is a genius when he is dreaming?”
3. Why does Kurosawa stress humankind’s need to harmonize with nature?
The humorous nature of psycho analysis is that there is really no relevance in the end. Each person can quite easily examine something and see a truly different meaning and still be entirely correct. However considering that I’d much rather acquire a good grade on this I’ll take a stab.
The first dream that I would examine would be the dream of the soldier entering the tunnel. It seemed to me to embody the inner turmoil that every properly functioning human being befalls when coming back from a war. To watch your own friends and family members dying, sometimes in your very arms, is an experience that nobody should wish upon anyone else. Yet it is a common event that happens every single day all over the world. The commander (I forget his actual position) seemed to be facing his own demons, the dog to me representing the primal responses that follow us after such a grave event ready to explode at a moments notice (if you noticed the 6 pack of hand grenades strapped to it).
It’s a torture that few escape in the midst of war, a permanent scar upon our minds that lasts until the very last breath. Survival guilt absorbing the few small glimmers of joy that should have been gained from surviving the widespread murder all around us.
The second dream I would examine would be the blizzard. It seems to reveal the personification of our world as we get closer to death. That blizzard that just seems to grow in force until the bitter last moments when the final euphoric thoughts hit our fading minds. The cold beautiful death that blankets the man seems to be the ultimate visual of that, the seemingly ultimate form of compassion releasing him from the difficult reality that surrounds him. Yet even with Death’s embrace all around him he decided to push on. The real question I wondered by the end of it was whether that tent was their salvation and the continuation of life or merely the final mirage as they walked off into the final stretches of death.
In our dreams we are not bound by natural law, we are allowed to flow freely, to think outside the boundaries of our fears. While we may have nightmares even they are wildly hyperbolic providing us with the pure essence of our thoughts, of our many shortcomings. It is in our dreams that we discover ourselves to see what we truly are and not what we want others to think we are. For those that fully accept their dreams they are given an infinitely large canvas to paint a beautiful scenery upon even if only for a few fleeting hours till they awake and return to the reality of constraints. Albeit with the proper mind I believe that the genius of the dreaming man can easily transcend the world of the waking.
There are roughly 36,000,000 miles between us and the next reasonable choice for habitation if our own planet were to die. Even that would require amazing levels of technology and overhauling and thusly could not be done as a last ditch effort. For every decade that we try harder to establish dominance over nature we strike another century off the habitable time we have left. For every species that dies off because of poisons or massive (and genuinely unnecessary) expansion we lose even more because of the chain that is broken.
It may seem somewhat exaggerative to say that we are killing the single place in the vast universe that currently can provide us with the vital components of life but it is truly mind boggling. If you were provided with a single source of water I imagine nobody would be crapping in it and yet that is essentially what we do now. We have a single planet, who’s two closest neighbors have been wrought with destruction. Venus has an atmosphere so thick that the surface of the planet can cook a frozen pizza in seconds and Mars a planet that once had water is entirely barren on the surface. Either route could be a likely outcome for us if we do not take a moment to step back and think about our actions.
There is only so far any variable can be stretched before the equation falls apart, indeed even gravity has a tipping point at which nearly nothing can escape. Once we hit that point on this planet there will be nothing we can do but watch everything around us die, and really what will we have gained up until that point? There is no greater fear than to be nothing and it is almost ironic that our actions are quite possibly going to lead to the entirety of human history being lost forever.
Renewability
2 years ago
by Rico Penguin
in General
Taking another break from Metaphysics I wanted to discuss today the idea of Renewability. I tend to talk about tons of things and sometimes I am quite redundant so if this is a topic I’ve covered previous I apologize.
There is one major factor that limits our ability to be rather creative with our automation of processes. It has been a question late at night for me if currency would have a purpose in a civilization that has optimized recycling and renewable energies and meshed those with entirely automated production facilities. If nobody has to work to provide humanity with the supplies to survive and the luxuries we desire would there be a purpose to currency? Probably, but I think it would stick around for the few who actually like it. That bit of philosophy aside lets continue.
We already have the technology to build structures that generate more power than they use annually. This doesn’t take into account other technologies that are particularly user and nature friendly like wind power and hopefully in the future I believe its called fusion. I’ve read in multiple places that you need to cover roughly the area of Arizona to produce enough energy (with quite a bit of excess) to power the US yearly. That may sound like a great deal of space but you figure that Arizona has 113,998 square miles of surface area. The entire US has a surface area of 3,537,441 square miles! That means we’d need to cover roughly 3% of the united states in solar paneling, which might cause one to ask “Dear Lord! You crazy penguin! That’s 3% of the US that nobody could live in!” but that’s the wonderful thing about Solar Paneling. The less distance you put between you and the Sun the better, mainly because (as far as I know) our atmosphere is a big jerk when it comes to light which is why you tend to find astronomers cuddled together on the top of mountains with big telescopes 
.
So once you have all this power and essentially an infinitely existing source (considering once the sun is gone we’ll be gone too in one way or another) you start dealing with other resources you require. Firstly is the obvious one of water. With copious amounts of energy we start looking towards methods of renewing water. I would figure there are quite a few very simple systems that could be used, like evaporating and recollecting water and filtering it through large sand (or sand like) basins. This way we’d have essentially infinitely renewable water, likewise desalination plants could take in water from the oceans and do whatever they do. Hopefully figuring out a system that doesn’t kill sea life of course . Also rain water collection and filtration plans to tap into the wonderful transportation system of the Earth.
Food I would think would be incredibly simple to keep up with. Tower like Hydroponics facilities could act like massive green houses that would supply tons of, insecticide free, food for everyone in there region. Likewise building it like a tower helps to supply you large amounts of food and use up little in the way of land. The excess that comes from the facilities that is inedible (whatever that be as long as its organic) could be used as fertilization for various gardens and such across the nation.
So you have food, water, and energy. Now we just have to deal with transportation and housing (essentially). For transportation I’d look into fuel cell systems to use the extra energy that is continually saved up from the solar power that is generated nationwide. Likewise I’m sure they’ll devise other successful systems of transportation, for those that have never tried you can bicycle pretty long distances pretty easily as well 
. Not that I expect the world to switch to cycle energy tomorrow. The only real casualty to switching to electrical energy would likely be that people will have more trouble breaking speed limits, which is likely not a big casualty.
Finally the deal with housing. Certain plants find themselves being very handy for building. In particular Bamboo, it spreads like a weed (might be considered one) and can be used for basically anything wood is used for. The general argument against it that I read about is that it can destroy land by growing too voraciously, however I imagine if you had these hydroponics towers you could grow bamboo in a self contained area. It wouldn’t take much area to grow more bamboo than you’d be able to use yearly.
Anyone who has ever used products made out of bamboo can attest to its amazing versatility. It’s sturdier than most wooden tools I’ve used, seems to resist bursting into flames well enough to keep me alive, and frankly it looks sexy. What I’m trying to get at is the only thing I can see that is keeping us from being entirely (or well into the 90% range) renewable is the greed of a very small portion of people. It’s a shame too, renewable energy is beautiful (ever seen a solar panel? It’s like thousands of tiny rainbows 
) and it smells great (relatively speaking ;D). Plus I doubt you’ve ever heard of a wind farm leaving acres of land radioactive and unusable, or heard of solar panels turning one of the worlds largest cities into a smog cloud.
I do feel that within 10 years any nation with a reasonable level of revenue, like say the US, could become a completely self sufficient entity that could then spend much of its excess cash on positive projects to help further humanity. Unfortunately none of this really arouses the interests of political parties and so there will likely be many years (I hope not before they end of my life) of crude energy sources that-well frankly-should have stopped existing long before I was even born. It’s unusual the diverse levels of technologies we use, it’s like watching cave men dropping atomic bombs it just feels weird.