Of course a poster again with a few of my favorite minimalist style art pieces. :-) This time featuring the artists: David Smith (sculptor), Franz Kline, Ellsworth Kelly, Kenneth Noland, Kasimir Malevich, Matisse, and Kandinsky. Did you notice Matisse and Kandinsky were also part of the last post? I think it's great to see how their style changed over the years, becoming more simplified and stylized.
"Modern" art is sometimes difficult for some people to understand- "it doesn't look real" or "I know a 3 year old who could make that" are common statements. What do you think about it?
Once you have learned to paint something realistically what else is left? You cannot make it real with paint. Have you hit a wall? What can you do? Sometimes when you have moved forward to an ideal you have to go backwards, start over, and then maybe there is something there you never noticed before.
Once the camera was invented there really wasn't a need for art to be real. Artists began exploring what actually made art "art"and what possibilities lay ahead for the future of art. Just like science during the 20th century was making leaps and bounds so did art. Art is a reflection of the thinking during a time period. When the world was fascinated with time and space and physics artists were exploring similar ideas or theories and how they might apply visually through art styles like (Marcel Duchamp- Nude descending a Staircase No. 2) Some artists explored what sound might "look" like (Kandinsky). When you listen to music with your eyes closed, do you imagine something "real" or shapes or colors or wiggling lines? When psychology was a popular fascination and breaking through as a science artists explored what that meant for art too- What is in my dreams or the things I don't think about but are somewhere floating in my brain, maybe I can paint that too (think Salvador Dali). Some artists watched kids paint and thought, "hey that 3 year old's painting is pretty good! I wish I could still paint like that and wasn't so concerned about the "rules" or what people say art has to be, maybe I will paint like that again." So many questions and SO many possibilities!
To go from this:
to this:
is actually quite a developmental and intellectual process and can be challenging for some so we took it step by step. For an artist to draw something realistic it is part of the process to look at something and visually break it down into shapes. First you need to sketch the very basic shapes and then you would add lines and details. What if we leave it in this "raw" state instead of adding details and shading? It looks kind of interesting. What if we rearrange those shapes? What if we take some out? Can it still be called what it originally looked like? Why or why not?
Supplies:
Paper
scissors
glue
paper in basic bright colors cut into shapes
This one took a lot of prep on my part. I had to first break a bicycle down into basic shapes then cut those shapes out of paper and then cut enough for all the students and write down how many of each shape each child would get.
Now that we've done that everyone gets a piece of paper and their allotted number of shapes.
Everyone look at a bicycle- what basic geometric shapes (circle, rectangle, triangle) do you see? Now using your shapes arrange them into a bicycle.
Now rearrange those shapes any way you'd like on your paper.
Once you get it the way you like it glue it down.
Here's some of the final results (some kids wanted to add more shapes so as long as they stuck with basic colors and shapes I let them):
No comments:
Post a Comment