Image has been an integral part of
human life for thousands of years. One of the first preserved cases
of image being used to record events was within the Lascaux Caves in
France. There's something tribal and moving about these illustrations
that cause people to flock to them, even now.
Another case of powerful design is the transfixing
paintings inside the Rothko Chapel. Mark Rothko was a abstract
expressionist who painted to give a spiritual or emotional
experience. These paintings had many layers and drew light from the
room, causing a feeling of loneliness and oblivion.
Is it conformist to cry at something like this?
Has the institution dictated what we should emotionally connect to or
is it natural for humans to be harrowed by this. Certainly the
institution has some control, as the light and temperature were
changed to heighten the experience.
Is it the institution that gives a piece visual
importance? If graffiti is placed in an art gallery, it is no longer
graffiti. Graffiti should be seen unexpectedly and is partially about
rebelling against an order.
Jackson Pollock also used abstract expressionism
within his art, and was famous for capturing raw and fleeting moments
of the mind.
These works are highly valued, yet artists like
Roy Lichtenstein, who use very fine and precise line, have challenged
this. Arguing that random streaks of paint shouldn't have such value
placed on them. Yet I would say it is more about the freedom and
instantaneous power that people connect with in abstract
expressionism.
Another image that used a similar rawness and
caught the world by storm was the 'Peace for Paris' logo from 2014.
Perhaps people connected with it so much because it was a quick and
unthinking expression of the moment. Image can often have a lot of
power, and will sometimes communicate better than words.
No comments:
Post a Comment