Standing in front of all the paintings and artworks in the Barnes Foundation, I feel like everything has changed, entangled with the conflicts and issues of the move of Barnes Foundation. Being here is not as simple as appreciating renowned works by distinguished artists any more. A deeper meaning has been added to my presence... As I re-imagine my first experience in the Barnes Foundation after watching the movie, the Art of Steal, about the considerable disputes of Barnes' move to the center city of Philadelphia, and reading several articles regarding Barnes' background, I start to see different things and find that ignorance actually makes an art experience more enjoyable.

There are different ways to look at art. Some prefer to look at the method the artist used, noting thick paint strokes or bold colors. Others try to connect emotionally with the painting, or try and understand its context or what the artist “was trying to say.” Still others prefer to let the works wash over them without putting much thought into finding patterns. 

On my trip to the Barnes Foundation, I decided that I would try to look at the art in the foundation in a manner similar to the way we looked at the two pieces in class. I wouldn’t read the information packet, but try to come up with my own observations about the colors and shapes. Then, I would “read” what I had noticed, by connecting the dots and making inferences about what was going on. In this way, I would try and approximate Barnes’s way of appreciating art.

If I figure out the cure to cancer, do I have to tell society?

My immediate answer is no. No one has to do anything. I strongly believe this. I do not have to wake up tomorrow morning, I do not have to go to my ESEM, and I definitely do not have to buy everyone Christmas presents.

But, I now realize a hang-up of semantics. It is not that I have to tell society, but that I should. 

Imagine if your neighbor gave you a teaspoon of salt, and you used that salt to make macaroons. It would be nice of you to give your neighbor a macaroon, but you don’t have to. Similarly, if society gives you all of the tools that help you shape your identity and your thoughts, you don’t have to give them your innovative ideas.

However, you should. Since you would have never made the macaroons without the salt and you would have never come up with the idea without society (the education you received, all of the experiences that allowed you to formulate this idea etc.), you should give your neighbor a macaroon and your idea to society.

Visiting The Barnes Foundation a few weeks ago nearly felt like another art history trip to a museum.  Cézanne, Courbet and many other artists we’ve been studying the past few months covered the walls.  As I reflected with Peter Paul Ruben’s The Incarnation as Fulfillment of All the Prophecies, I noticed that much of what came to mind tied in to a previous lesson I had had in that class.  I over analyzed rather than allow myself a natural experience.  Previously, I had given little thought as to how paintings and sculptures in museums spoke to one another.  Barnes successfully ties his collection together through his use of furniture and metal pieces thereby creating his own work of art.  The Art of Steel added to my curiosity and allowed me to question both the motives and decisions behind the move of The Barnes.  There was much controversy behind the choice to change the location to Philadelphia, yet how did it alter the foundation and artwork in the long run?

I seldom came to somewhere to see pictures by foreign painters because I believed if I could not know those painters’ background, I would not understand the deep meaning of their works. So, I just treated those works respectfully in my heart and refused to see them. However, my experience today changes in some degree my mind. And I think although the background is un-known for me, it won’t influence my enjoyment.

There are thousands of art works in front of me. Some are made by very famous painters such as Van Gogh or Monet, and others are made by unfamiliar names. I walk from one room to another, those works on the wall look at me silently, and I try to choose one work that shocks me or causes my interest. When I enter in a new room, I decide to sit for a break. Then, when I notice the picture on the wall, I know, the one I need is here.

Sorry, I accidently deleted this!

I had intended to go to a poetry slam on Friday, but was unable to, due to a conflict with my performance of Henry IV. Instead, I shall go to the Macy’s Christmas show, not too far away from city hall. I intend to try for original, deep play, rediscovering the light show and Christmas spirit, through one of the methods Walker Percy proposes- seeing the wonder through the lens of the tourism.

The idea of feminism unbound can be a confusing one. I have struggled with the idea of feminism unbound and it took me a while to understand it. After each discussion of the term I question my understanding. I understand it now to be that after you get past the ideas of sex and gender it is what happens. I think that an example of feminism unbound is the idea of looking at people individually, not on lineage or relationships. Separating people from their associations and seeing people for their individual achievement.  Not assuming dependence. Looking at whom many people think of as successful and powerful women and seeing that many if not most seem to have a successful husband or father.  We need to separate the idea of dependence from sex and gender to unbind it.

coauthored by Frindle

Co-authored by Claire

In writing a paper on forgery, it is necessary to first state the definition of plagiarism and forgery. Plagiarism is a reproduction or seizure of another’s work without proper accreditation.  Forgery, on the other hand, occurs when someone reproduces a work of art (or style thereof) and puts a different creators name on it (e.g. painting in the style of Van Gogh and putting his name on it).

Society teaches us that stealing is wrong, and this includes stealing someone’s identity. In the case of art forgery, it is wrong because it uses another person’s name and reputation to make money, without the consent of the aforementioned individual. Copying another work is acceptable, but using another person’s name is not. Painting in the style of Van Gogh and then telling people it was a new painting of his that you found is equivalent to writing in the style of Shakespeare and then saying it was a new play written by The Bard Himself. In both of these cases, the work is being unveiled not because of how happy it will make people or how beautiful it is, but because the presenter wants prestige and, potentially, money. If someone wanted to bring happiness to people, they could do that without using a different creator’s name.

Samantha Plate

Play In The City

Mark Lord

12/09/2013

How Should We View Art?

            In my viewing of The Postman at The Barnes Foundation, I experienced two different ways in which to experience the painting. After writing my paper, learning more about the history, and participating in class discussion, I have begun to question those two techniques. More importantly, I began to question which method was better. Is the experience of viewing art, and learning, through feeling and emotional connection better than through analyzing the details?

My automatic reaction to The Postman led me to view the painting through feeling. I made an emotional connection with the painting and I let it speak to me. I did not try to think about certain things, nor did I try to become thoughtless. The thoughts that ran through my head contained a range of emotions and resulted in the urge to cry. I felt like I truly saw the real beauty in the painting, and without any outside influence. I was aware of the experience I was having in a way not unlike deep play. Surely this was the best possible way to view a piece of art, the best way to learn.