surroundings.

This week I decided to really look at the art that is displayed in my apartment. Oddly enough, it has taken me a month and a half to do so even though I have done nothing but observe all kinds of art ever since we landed here in Italy. 

The works displayed throughout our apartment are incredibly diverse and of several artistic styles. I pictured a few of them below and yes there are many more. Although none of these works seem to connect or "flow" together in a room , I have grown fond of each and every one of them. There is something beautiful to be found in each work uniquely. 

This raised a question, does art need to be displayed with works of a similar time period, style, or theme? How does this change or effect our perception of the art? I at first viewed these pieces as completely random and even tacky because of the lack of cohesiveness but I began to see them in a different light. Because these works are so drastically different, it allows the viewer to look at them as individuals instead of absorbing the entire exhibit at once. 

relative beauty.

Time here in Florence is going by unbelievably fast. We are now over 1/3 of the way through the trip and my to-do list grows everyday. I finally feel as though I am really living in this country, I no longer look dazed and confused as I walk into the local cafe or market (a large feat considering where we started). The struggle now is to remember to not get too comfortable, but then again how could you ever get used to views like these?

Now to touch on school for a minute...this weeks class discussion raised the standard question; what is art? For anyone that has ever attempted to answer this ambiguous question, you recognize the complexity it raises. Who defines art? What makes a work pleasing? Does "art" have to be beautiful?

One crucial part of history that I have rarely found myself being able to connect to is the cubist movement. The works below, both of the analytic cubism category, are highly significant to the world of art. I understand the concept behind the works and admire the drastic change in style for the time in which they were created but I cannot connect to the pieces. I find them confusing and not necessarily "beautiful." I know this might potentially cause uproar or disgust in the art world but it is my personal opinion and preference.

The Portuguese Georges Braque

The Guitar Player Pablo Picasso

So does art have to be "beautiful"? Beautiful is a relative term so I guess my answer would have to be no. I wouldn't necessarily consider a fair amount of works to be beautiful however I would still call them art. Art then to me would be defined as personal visual expressions that cannot be defined by any specific rules. Picasso and Braque should be admired for their revolutionary step in artistic expression, even if individuals like myself struggle to find the connection to their artwork. 

the eye of the beholder.

Each and every day I walk by dozens of streets, all unique and worth a little admiration. After finding myself stopping on numerous occasions to take a picture of a street that caught my eye, I am disappointed with how unimpressive the picture is on the screen after. 

(Side street by my apartment)

I have come to the realization that a lot of what makes this city beautiful simply cannot be captured in a photograph, it is to be experienced in the moment.

(Passage through Vernazza)

Looking through all of my photographs trying to decide what to write about this week, I discovered a lot of random street pictures. I guess my fascination is rooted in wanting to get to know the real culture of the country, somehow these side streets provide a window for that. We need to appreciate the city as a whole and find the beauty in more than just the overcrowded famous buildings, monuments, and artwork. 

(Oltrano)

Art is not always the traditional painting, drawing, or sculpture. The artistic layout of a street or the architectural elements lining it are an aesthetic experience on their own.

(San Gimignano)

context.

As I venture into my third week here in Florence, I find that I have gotten so comfortable in my new surroundings that I already need to remind myself of where I am. I am living in a historically rich, artistic, and profound city. Buildings and artwork that I pass by on a daily basis have made monumental impacts on the artistic world that we currently know. As a result, I have made a pact with myself to pause at least once a day and recognize the beauty in something.

Today this came into play as I walked through Piazza della Signoria. Normally used as a mere path of transportation, I have tended to get in and out of this tourist packed square as fast as I could, occasionally rolling my eyes at the oblivious tourists. Today I decided to stop and bear the crowds to actually observe the magnificent sculptures, which are well deserving of the crowds they attract.

Since the origin of this blog is school based, I should incorporate some of what I have been learning here in Florence into my thoughts. This week's class discussion was on the basis of context and the way in which the display of art can effect the audience's perception of society. In Piazza della Signoria there are many famous sculptures and replicas out on display. In general, the main figures in these works are idealized men who are portrayed as powerful and fearless. The replica of Michelangelo's David was created as a heroic symbol of protection and strength as well as Bandinelli's Hercules and Cacus, a more prominent visual of power. These statues, along with Perseus Holding the Head of Medusa, Menelaus Supporting the Body of Patroclus, Hercules Beating the Centaur Nessus, and Rape of the Sabine Woman, all have one thing in common: a depiction of the dominant man. These iconic and "ideal" images, whether shown through physical domination, violence, or warrior imagery, all contribute to one perception of our society: that in which a man must strive to be heroic and powerful.

Michelangelo's David (replica)

Bandinelli's Hercules and Cacus

Cellini's Perseus Holding the Head of Medusa

Menelaus Supporting the Body of Patroclus

Boulogne and Francavilla's Hercules Beating the Centaur Nessus

Giambologna's Rape of the Sabine Woman 

So what is the point? Most people just simply admire the technique and realistic rendering of the human figure in these sculptures. My favorite part of the class I am taking here in Florence is that we analyze the aspects surrounding a work of art that I wouldn't have given a second thought before. When viewing these particular sculptures together I realized that there is a strong socially constructed view of masculinity suggested. Man is not portrayed as intellectual or spiritual, solely warrior-like. This process has made me think; how often then is the context of a work of art actually affecting the message it is conveying? What other subliminal messages have been conveyed to me through the medium or art exhibition?