blog 5 (undirected blog)

While completing the reading guide assignment for this week, I found out (through the assignment 3 readings and the textbook reading) that figures within the Teotihuacán paintings were depicted in a profile image, except for Gods, who were painted frontally. This seems like a trivial minor observation, but in actuality it gives a much deeper meaning to their art and reflects their society’s views and also religious beliefs through the artwork, which I found fascinating. To reserve the honor of being painted frontally for only the Gods, these people were explaining their cultural beliefs and showing how they worship their Gods and hold them in the highest regard. Yet they paint individual figures in profile, even those of rulers. It shows a humbleness and civility, as well as utmost respect for their Gods. When I read that they painted only the Gods frontally, I assumed it was in comparison to those common citizens or servants shown in paintings in profile, usually in groups such as the maids to a God or the warriors going into battle. So I found it surprising that even the rulers were painted in profile, because that shows how even though they are an authority figure in the society, they still serve the Gods and view themselves as beneath the Gods, reserving the frontal depictions in art for only the Gods. This puts more of their artwork into context, and made the reliefs more interesting to me, as I noticed which figures were painted frontally and which were painted in profile (it gives the viewer a greater sense of rank to distinguish between the figures and to develop an understanding of the relationship between the figures in the piece). Another fact that I read in the assignment 3 reading link was that even though only Gods are painted frontally, the Great Goddess was painted frontally yet the Storm God was painted in profile. That makes a bold statement about the role of women in society and in regards to their authoritative status among the Teotihuacán people.

undirected blog 10/4

The map of Mesoamerica has been very helpful for me in identifying the locations of art pieces and the relationship between art and architecture at each specific location in Mesoamerica. It is a lot of information to retain, but very interesting to learn about. I noted that there was a structural theme in the majority of the cities found within the map; they each have a ball court, some even have multiple ball courts in one town. I looked at the sketches and photos of these ball courts in the different locations, and they were all similar in layout and some in size, although some were on a larger scale and had bigger stadiums for spectators. I found this relevant to the size of the city and the population of its people, which makes sense. I found this interesting that the ancient Mesoamericans were such athletic people and so interested in sporting activities at such a primitive time period, and that it was so monumental to them that they created central structures within their cities to devote to this sport. The reading linked this tradition to soccer, which I found very intriguing because Hispanic people are very passionate about soccer in particular, and it would be very cool to discover that the basis for the development of this sport came from this area and evolved from the sport Mesoamericans played in their ball courts thousands of years ago, and that a direct descendant of this game is still played today. The sculpture of the ball court in the reading was unique and different from previous pieces we’ve studied, so it stood out to me, just like the structures of the ball courts did on the map. The game atmosphere depicted in the sculpture was more friendly and family-oriented than I would have assumed from just viewing the ball courts. It seemed more realistic and similar to modern game stadiums, with all the fans cheering on the players.

Frida Kahlo Exhibit Experience

My overall experience at the museum was stimulating but also unnerving, because of the ridiculous crowd both in line for the museum and also once inside the exhibit. I was glad that there was such a wide variety of pieces on exhibition, but most of the pieces were kind of disturbing to me, so it wasn’t exactly a pleasant stroll through the museum. Also, I had the same problem that several other students expressed in the student discussion lounge (that it was extremely difficult to get photos of myself at the exhibit), because the museum employees were watching closely and would reprimand anyone who tried to take a picture in the exhibit. I wish I could have gotten pictures of me with the pieces that correlate with what I wrote in my blog, but between the crowd surrounding each piece and the museum employees’ glares, I was unable to do so (however, my friend and I found that the photos of Frida were less heavily guarded than the paintings, so we were able to take a few hurried shots in that area). At least I managed to get a few quick blurry shots for proof that I was at the exhibit, but it was a stressful experience and I would rather not have to go through that again and risk being banned from the museum entirely. I also found that the price for admission and entrance to the museum and Frida exhibit was expensive, so I ended up buying a membership to get free passes (although the membership was expensive too!). Besides all the hassle that the trip entailed, I did enjoy the exhibit and learned a lot about the artist and her influences.

I saw a Mexican girl at the exhibit and thought "Hey! Here's another element of Mexican heritage to add to my blog! I should take a picture with her!" (Just kidding, that's my best friend, who just happens to be half-Mexican).

The pieces that I found the most interesting were different in subject matter, but both deep in terms of interpreting the message within the art. The first piece I saw at the Kahlo exhibit was the Portrait of Luther Burbank (1931), and I was intrigued by it immediately. It has a less harsh political message compared to some of Kahlo’s other portraits and pieces, but it still conveys a deep meaning. For those who are not familiar with the work of Luther Burbank, he was a scientist who studied horticulture and created numerous species of plants. The portrait of Luther Burbank by Frida Kahlo is a very accurate depiction of this man, incorporating both the realist and the symbolic interpretive abstraction in the piece. He is seen as both a man alive and a man dead, buried and decomposing under the ground. He dedicated his life’s work to studying plants and nature, and this piece shows what a big part of his personality his work was (through the tree trunk that his live body grows out of, the seeds that grow out of his hands into leaves, and the tree roots that intertwine with his decomposing body in the earth). I like how the piece draws the eye up and down from the center outward; when I first saw this piece my eye caught the live body growing out of the tree trunk first, then went down the trunk to the roots and the body they grow through, then back up again as if to show that he comes from the earth (symbolizing the cycle of life as well). Compared to some of Kahlo’s other pieces, this painting is tame in nature of the subject matter.

The other piece that was the most interesting to me was the Flower of Life (1944). I don’t necessarily like this piece or feel that it’s pleasing to the eye, but it intrigued me to think more about the piece and the intention behind it, forcing me to interpret it more deeply than her still life pieces and portraits. To me, that’s the kind of art that I enjoy, the pieces that stimulate the mind to draw conclusions about the subject matter and the artist’s intention in creating it. The title is somewhat ironic to me, because at first glance it doesn’t look like a flower at all, but more like an alien morphing from a plant. Yet when you pay attention to the features of the plant and the attention to detail in specific areas, you see that it’s a fusion of the human body with the anatomy of a flower, and it shows the similarities between the two and also the concept of the cycle of life.

I found several pieces that Kahlo painted which exhibited her pride in her heritage and depicted aspects of her traditional Mexican roots, such as the traditional outfits she painted herself wearing in The Double Portrait of Frida and Diego Rivera, her Self-Portrait on the Border Line between Mexico and the United States, and The Two Fridas. Also, some of her pieces included elements of more ancient Mexico and Mesoamerica, specifically the pieces My Nurse and I and Self-Portrait on the Border Line between Mexico and the United States. There are numerous influences of Mexican art and architecture in her self-portrait on the border, such as the Mexican flag in her hand, the ancient temple from pre-Columbian times, and the sculptures on the left behind her that were ancient fertility idols, similar in shape and features to those we’ve studied.

The piece My Nurse and I stood out to me as the most influenced by Mesoamerican art, for several reasons. The nurse who is holding baby Frida wears a mask that is Teotihuacán, a stone mask similar to those worn by Mesoamericans and shown in numerous piece of their art. Also, the position that the nurse holds the baby in struck me as very similar to the Las Limas piece, where the shaman holds the supernatural god out in his outstretched hands. Both images are meant to be seen as sacrificial offerings, not as loving embraces, although both have been misinterpreted as such. I found this similarity very interesting.