There have been many facets of art that have been radically challenged, altered, and re-thought in the era of art currently known as Contemporary Art. One of the most important constituents of art work itself, if not the most important, is light. Light is absolutely necessary for vision to occur, and how can something like art exist without the ability to see? Light’s significance is scientifically axiomatic; therefore it is crucial to understand how light operates, effects us as humans, and impacts our perception of the world around us. There are two contemporary artists that devoted their artistic endeavors towards the study of light. James Turrell and Olafur Eliasson have made it their pursuit to analyze, evaluate, and experiment with light. But even though light may be the linking factor between the art works of these two artists, the discernment is more important. James Turrell’s Ganzfeld Effect artwork aims more to reveal light’s effect on humans while Olafur Eliasson’s Color Experiments focus on light itself and experiments with its properties to better understand it as its own entity regardless of human perception.

Now, I should start off by explaining how both artists have numerous different works covering different aspects of art, although the core concepts of their processes and methods remains constant. Comparatively, Eliasson and Turrell are renown for their large installation projects in which they intend the viewers to be encapsulated and consumed by the art itself so as to experientially as well as visually become stimulated. Ganzfeld Effect, Germany, James Turrell, 2013 (Figure 1) demonstrates the sheer size of the exhibit and how it requires a person to “step inside” of the art rather than view from an ephemeral position. Similarly, although a painting, Color Experiment No. 4, Olafur Eliasson, 2013 (Figure 2) also requires a person to allow for the paintings consumption of their senses. A different perspective provides a better visual perspective of this as Color Experiment No. 60, Olafur Eliasson, 2013 (Figure 3) shows the painting’s size relative to a person; the giant “hoop” or “ring” of color when looked at from the center extends beyond the bounds of periphery to prevent the inhibition of boundary for a person to “get lost” in the painting. This painting method could be compared for imaginative reference to Jackson Pollock’s enormous “Splash Paintings” which were done on a large rectangular canvas two or three times the length of a person. In each works by Turrell and Eliasson, the use of this method perfectly sets up the visual scenery for light to have its utmost impact on the sensory.

The light used in James Turrell’s Ganzfeld Effect seen in Figure 1 is projected onto a large screen at the end of a stairway corridor. The stairs only end when you are immediately faced with this bright pinkish light with a somewhat purple hue and your entire visual field (which is what Ganzfeld literally translates to in german) is immersed in this light. Standing right in front of this overwhelming light all directions and angles of your vision are filled with this singular color of light. Contrastingly, Eliason’s color discs seen in Figure 2 and 3 are not one uniform color. This is one of the primary differences in what each artists seeks to do with light. In fact, Eliason’s Color Experiments do not emit light, they demonstrate it through pigmentation or coloring. On each disc, Eliason had worked with a color chemist to meticulously replicate through painting each nanometer of the visible light spectrum[1]. Obviously when quantifying that much color it is not possible to use one disc of those dimensions so Eliasson painted these colors onto over 60 of these for the time being. It is not to say that Turrell’s Ganzfeld Effect won’t be developed further but its idea and desired effect is essentially completed, but with Eliasson’s Color Experiment works he has not yet finished, in fact it is never really meant to be finished hence its name referring to an experiment where there is constant analysis and change. Obviously Eliasson hopes to achieve a result with this project but one of the fundamental principles of experimenting with colors of visible light is that is remains in a perpetual experimental state to found this new “color theory”. Eliason states in an interview, “….The works continue to be experimental even in their “finished” state. I try to maintain this tension, to create works that ask questions rather than give answers”[2].

Both Eliasson and Turrell are actually very similar in the regard that they view each of their works as experiments. However, the common medium of light is the variable of each experiment whose intended and achieved results are the differentiating factor. So if are both artists could be seen as scientists of light, Eliasson’s hypothesis would be about light and the colors drawn from it and the characteristics of their nature while Turrell’s hypothesis would concern not so much the light itself or the color but the person viewing the light and their perception or reaction. One more important difference that can also be seen through the scientific lens is influence and the basis for each of these artist’s experiments with their art works. While I am sure Turrell had influence throughout his life that inspired him to pursue this aspect of art, Eliasson actually studied the works of a 19^th century painter named J.M.W. Turner and in his own experiments intends to continue his study of light and color to reach a revolutionary new take on color or a new color theory as he calls it[3]. However, Turrell did work with two other people on his Ganzfeld Effect project as well as numerous other projects. Artist Robert Irwin and physiological psychologist Dr. Edward Wartz worked with Turrell to create Ganzfeld and its desired effect on perception[4]. So while both Turrell and Eliasson founded the original idea for their respective light projects, the inclusion of the specialized professionals can tell you what each experiment and therefore what each artist focused on doing with light. Eliasson worked with a color chemist which signifies the focus on color itself while Turrell used a physiological psychologist which indicates that he intends to work with not light on its own but how light effects perception.

Turrell’s Ganzfeld in Figure 1, as mentioned previously, attempts to alter a persons perception using light. As you can see from Figure 1, the giant screen emitting the pink colored light has to be seen from a close enough proximity to where the person loses any peripheral boundaries. The light engulfs your visual sense and by doing so disrupts your brain’s ability to perceive as it normally does. With no lining or frame in this light, a person standing in front loses any sense of spatial proprioception. Proprioception is the sensory system that allows us to gather our position in relation to external objects giving us a sense of spatial location and balance. This is the point of Eliasson’s Ganzfelds. By overwhelming a person’s visual field with light and no objects or defining lines to indicate direction or position, up or down or side, perception of spatial awareness is absent and the person cannot discern and loses touch with reality. In fact, some people have been so affected by this neuro-psychological phenomenon they have passed out or hallucinated[5]. But in Eliasson’s works seen in Figure 1 and 3, no such effect is felt. However there is one “trick” involving perception but it doesn’t have to do with light. Eliasson chose to make the discs with a giant white hole in the middle not containing any pigment. This was to decentralize and essentially allow the painting to become seemingly endless[6]. This inspires a person to take his or her time and feel no rush while looking at the painting to provoke further contemplation and understand the colors. While it is hard to clearly define Eliasson’s point with experimenting with colors, its significance in relation to light is explicit. The light depicted by the colors used in Turner’s paintings so perfectly captured the real visible light we see in nature so Eliasson, entranced by this display wish to harness this use of colors and extract it and experiment with it to better understand how these colors work. That is the point of Color Experiments, to isolate each color down to its very nanometer in the visible light spectrum so the viewer can just focus on the colors and how they interact with one another and how they operate.

In conclusion, Eliasson and Turrell have both achieved great and wonderful things in their light projects. While there were many similarities in methodology and outlook, the difference was the most important. These artists can both be thought of in the scientific light as experimenters of the science of light. Turrell’s focus was on lights effect on human perception while Eliasson’s focus was on the light itself and how it manifests into the colors we know and see everyday but do not understand as its own entity. Perhaps if their projects were combined into one study and their results collaborated, we as human beings can master the medium of light and usher in a new age of art that can use these breakthroughs on the nature of light and human perception to inspire a whole genre of light art to which the whole world can begin to realize light for the miracle of nature that it is.

Works Cited:

New Works Inspired By JMW Turner Created By Olafur Eliasson For Tate Britatin, Tate.org.uk (2014).

Elisa Wouk Almino, Interview: Olafur Eliasson on Turning Light Into Color, Hypoallergic (2015).

[1] Mary Molinaro, Review: “James Turrell: The Art and Science of Light and Space,” Art Documentation: The Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America 10-3 (1991): 157.

Shaunacy Ferro, The Mind-Bending Science of James Turrell’s Art, Popular Science (2013).

URL for Website:

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-07/james-turrell-psychology

https://hyperallergic.com/174725/olafur-eliasson-on-turning-light-into-color/

http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-britain/display/olafur-eliasson-turner

Artwork Index

Figure 1. Ganzfeld Effect (Kunstmuseum, Wolfburg, Germany), James Turrell, 2009

Figure 2. Color Experiment Painting No. 4, Olafur Eliasson, 2013.

Figure 3. Color Experiment No. 60 Exhibition, Olafur Eliasson, 2013

[1] New Works Inspired By JMW Turner Created By Olafur Eliasson For Tate Britatin, Tate.org.uk (2014).

[2] Elisa Wouk Almino, Interview: Olafur Eliasson on Turning Light Into Color, Hypoallergic (2015).

[3] Elisa Wouk Almino, Interview: Olafur Eliasson on Turning Light Into Color, Hypoallergic (2015).

[4] Mary Molinaro, Review: “James Turrell: The Art and Science of Light and Space,” Art Documentation: The Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America 10-3 (1991): 157.

[5] Shaunacy Ferro, The Mind-Bending Science of James Turrell’s Art, Popular Science (2013).

[6] Elisa Wouk Almino, Interview: Olafur Eliasson on Turning Light Into Color, Hypoallergic (2015).

I must admit, prior to this course I little know knowledge base in art history let a lone Soviet art. Through the entirety of this course I have learned a copious amount of information regarding art within the Russian culture in the context of art history. The material and the associated assignments given provided a sea of learning experience for me in areas such as Russian history, Russian art, Soviet art, and the movements in that era that provided turning points in Soviet Culture. The artifacts used during the course of this class were invaluable tools to better my understanding of Soviet Art and art history itself. There were three artifacts in particular that I found to be the most beneficial to the learning process. The book Mastering The Art of Soviet Cooking by Anya von Bremzen, the scribe notes artifact, and the discussion leader artifact all allowed me to learn things about Soviet Culture I was not aware of or did not know much about.

In von Bremzen’s book, there was a plethora of eye-witness chronicles that both storied and explained the daily life of a Soviet Civilian. All of my previous knowledge based off the education I received only made me privy to the exploits of an oppressive government and the figures that led the government with a few historical events as well. Von Bremzen beautifully incorporated certain objects that held symbolic meaning to the Soviet peoples to which the reader was able to if not empathize than paint a clear picture of what a normal day-to-day and even special occasion activities, beliefs, and struggles held. It was through the author’s use of symbolism that this artifact allowed me to understand such things that were novel to me. For instance, at one point in the book von Bremzen discusses the significance of the mayo jar. The mayo jar was one of the most pervasive symbols exemplifying the ordinary Soviet man or women’s resourcefulness necessitated by the deprivation or inaccessibility of such a simple and important object such as a container. All across the Soviet Union the large jars of mayo each person would purchase at a local goods dispensary, which was almost identical throughout the country, would eventually become depleted of the mayo. Instead of discarding this empty jar it was re-used for a multitude of purposes including, based off one account of a reading of an advertisement, transporting pregnancy tests to the physicians office! This allowed me to develop not just an understanding but an admiration for the people who inhabited this country and had to compensate and find ways to survive and thrive given the difficult living situation they endured on a daily basis.

The scribe notes artifact allowed me to re-learn with collaborated input from the class what we had gone over in that lecture, including the article or articles we had been assigned to read the night prior. By doing the scribe notes I had to pay attention to class’ discussion and record each and every person’s input on either a topic introduced by the professor or the “discussion leader’s” questions. Then after the class had adjourned, I had to go back and review the notes I had taken and translate them into full-sentenced ideas usually with pictures and/or video concerning the topic being discussed. So the process of jotting notes down from every person who offered their own point of view or understanding of the reading or topic and then taking that information and reviewing and editing it forced me to view the topic from all different angles as well as re-read it so it can permeate in my memory. In one of my scribe notes, scribes notes for the discussion of chapters 8-10 in von Bremzen’s book, this process allowed me to learn and better understand how the Soviet people reacted to Stalin’s death in relation to modern events such as the Michael Brown shooting from this past summer. By taking notes on the class’ discussion of Stalin’s death and the professor’s connection to modern events or events happening in our own country, I developed a thorough comprehension of this part of Soviet culture.

In a similar but singular way, the discussion leader assignment also forced me to construct a well-developed image of Soviet culture. The process by which creating the discussion leader questions aided my learning was via stimulating my own opinion and ideas about the topic of the reading. After completing the reading I had to re-read it to uncover the primary ideas. By doing this I can pose my own questions about the thesis and main ideas and by concocting these questions I can expand my mind’s ability to critique Soviet Art which even furthers my understanding of the subject matter. In a particular example, the discussion leader questions I made for the reading concerning Soviet Poster Art vastly improved my understanding of this topic. After reading the literature covering this topic, I had to go back and re-read it to search for the thesis and main points in which I would create my own questions for. During the class when I presented these questions I received the input from all of the different students who answered each question. This allowed me to view the Soviet Poster Art from all different perspectives giving me an even more comprehensive understanding of Soviet Culture.

Within the Russian Avant-Garde era of artistic explosion, two artists particularly stand out. Kazimir Malevich and Vladimir Tatlin provided monumental innovation in their art works. Although both were bitter rivals in essence, there is an overlapping similarity between them that when observed at a closer look exposes an interesting subject. Prior to the novel ideas and art work of Malevich and Tatlin, the art that was making waves in the Avant-Garde scene were concepts such as Futurism and Cubism. The artists that founded and represented these ideas were receiving attention all over the world, especially in Europe. But concerning Tatlin and Malevich, one of these ideas drew a particular interest and thus inspired each artist to construct their respective new ideas. However, given the difference in artistic outlook it was clear that Cubism’s influence on each artist was channeled differently as well. However, Vladimir Tatlin’s constructivist Reliefs and Counter Reliefs incorporated Cubist influence into the aesthetic and basic concepts while Kazimir Malevich’s Suprematism Painting: Aeroplane Flying were inspired by cubism to contradict its principles in a pursuit of a more cosmically proportional meaning.

Cubism was developed around 1908 to 1912 in Europe[1]. Suprematism and Constructivism were developed around the same time, shortly after Cubism had reached its height of notoriety. Malevich created the idea of Suprematism in 1913 and the art work was introduced to fame when it entered a German exhibition in Berlin in 1922[2]. Vladimir Tatlin’s first constructivist art work was displayed in an exhibition around 1914[3]. So as this timeline of artistic emergence points out, the network of Avant-Garde artists in Europe and Russia was closely linked. Several Cubist artists and writers played an integral role in both introducing and influencing both men to the concepts of Cubism.

When observing each work of art, there are certain distinctions as well as contradictions in the implications Malevich and Tatlin had on art in relation to space. If you observe Corner Counter Relief, Vladimir Tatlin, 1915 (Figure 1) The materials comprising the installation are suspended, this immediately implies a defining message about the material’s relationship with space. In juxtaposition with Suprematist Painting: Aeroplane Flying, Kazimir Malevich, 1915 (Figure 2) you can notice how the colored geometric shapes are painted on an entirely white background with no perceived frame. This whiteness surrounding the objects is Malevich’s method of depicting a “weightlessness,” in which actual cosmic space would be the reality[4]. Cubism had many novel concepts concerning art and paintings but one medium in which it focused heavily on was space and how it played into the art and objects within the art. It is in the broadest sense of this emphasis on space in the artwork that Malevich and Tatlin are similar. Each artist set out, in these respective pieces, to achieve an idiosyncratic view on space’s impact in the art as a tool, or medium, or even support.

In Tatlin’s piece in Figure 1, the shape, type, and positioning, of each material holds great meaning in terms of the essence of the counter-relief perspective. It is obvious, although the picture of this installation may be in black and white, that most of the materials are metals of some sort. Metal is highly malleable as well as durable and after being shaped or bent can maintain its new form. Notice also how there is no real order amongst the materials, each piece of sheet metal or wire seems to be randomly connected, touching each other from random angles. It is also difficult therefore to find a point of convergence where the art ends or one material begins and another ends. It is similar to the balancing trick where you can take a random assortment of kitchen utensils or objects with no congruity and have them balance, i.e. two forks balancing on a glass cup with no adhesive or stabilizing agent, they seem to exert enough force at the right angle to where they reach equilibrium. Malevich’s painting from Figure 2 is comprised of a much different relationship between the materials and the space. Even though the painting is called Aeroplane Flying there is no apparent resemblance to an actual airplane; there are several different colored sets of square or rectangular blocks in close proximity to one another with no apparent connection between them apart from close proximity between them which immediately contradicts Tatlin’s piece. Tension and force of not just the materials is absent but of gravity itself, the figures seem to be floating as if drifting in outer space. However, the comparison can be made that the action, whether it be action of or inaction of, the objects of focus (the blocks in Malevich’s painting & the metal sheets/wire/string in Tatlin’s installation) contains the meaning of the art work and what it’s trying to accomplish.

The weightlessness of the objects depicted in Malevich’s painting in Figure 2 is of the utmost significance. This absence of gravitational force signifies the need to move beyond the earth and its objects. Malevich, although these ideas were not fully formed at first, believed in the “exit” of not objects in general, but objects of this world[5]. This notion of wanting to be break free and leave the necessity of objects for art to convey its meaning was influenced by the Cubist idea of focusing on ordinary and well known objects and essentially breaking them up into unidentifiable pieces of images which were jumbled. Although Malevich was inspired by the notion of countering the notion of previous art work, to him, Cubism still represented a connection with earthly objects which he believed belittled what art should embody. But Tatlin took certain Cubist principles and ran with it using a constructivist outlet with installations instead of paintings. Instead of contradicting Cubist principles, Tatlin carried over the Cubist concept of this focus on materials speaking for the art work. It was the basis for what Faktura artists like Tatlin called “material dialogue or material heterogeneity,” or a way of letting the materials speak for themselves[6].

The next significant difference between Malevich’s Suprematism and Tatlin’s Counter-Relief work dealt with the previously discussed concept of special relations. In Figure 1, the materials and the space possess an inherent relationship that forms the basis for Tatlin’s constructivist counter reliefs. The removal of a wooden board from Tatlin’s Relief contructions and the change of placement to the corner for the Counter Reliefs indicates his intentions for the spatial relationship between the material and the void. This is seen in when observing Painterly Relief, Vladimir Tatlin, 1914 in Figure 3 while juxtaposed to Figure 1; Figure 3 shows Tatlin’s installation with the wood and metal is centered on a wall with a wooden frame behind it, supporting it. Tatlin wished to remove the frame out of the picture for the sake of altering the space by taking the frame which became part of the art itself and now allowing the material tension to occupy a pace which itself supports the art work[7]. Now, Malevich in Figure 2 had a completely different take on how the space should be perceived. Similarly, with his insertion of the all white background with no visible boarders that construct a limit that was indeed about deleting a frame. However, Malevich wished for this to be evident as to cut any connection with objects in general or even any gravitational force or tension. That free floating illusion represents the Suprematist belief that cosmic space is the “supreme” concept encompassing all else. The divergence from cubism in each of these works is evident however, Tatlin’s intention can actually even be thought of as an evolution of cubism still maintaining some of its foundations while Malevich’s intention goes so vastly beyond what cubism entailed it contradicts its very nature.

The Soviet Avant-Garde has bred an era of creativity, innovation, and revolutionary artistic thinking. These novel ideas concern art from all different types and styles. But when an analysis of where this inspiration comes from, cubism is clearly woven into the fabric of these new concepts and ideas. Two artists who were at the forefront of the Soviet Avant-Garde, Kazimir Malevich and Vladimir Tatlin, were no exception to this trend. However, each artists used their cubist influence in different ways. Malevich clearly viewed cubism, while holding its concept of challenging the notion of all previous art as admirable, as contrast. Cubism to Malevich, however forward its concepts were in the art world, was still confined by earthly “objectness,” and he sought to breach this notion and take art into the realm of the cosmos where it ultimately should be. Tatlin, while still incorporating his own creative constructivist spin, was much more in touch with cubism’s influence, using many of its ideas and styles even in his later Counter-Reliefs. But at the end of the day, cubism must be recognized as a vital icon in the world of progressive art which seeks to defy tradition and push the limits of its existence.

Art Work Index

Figure 1. Corner Counter Relief. Vladmir Tatlin, 1915 (Exhibition: Zero-Ten, The Last Futurist Exhibition Painting in Dobychina Gallery in St. Petersburg).

Figure 2. Suprematist Painting: Aeroplane Flying. Kazimir Malevich, 1915 (oil on canvas).

Figure 3. Painterly Relief. Vladimir Tatlin, 1914

[1] http://www.artcyclopedia.com/history/cubism.html

[2] Kazimir Malevich, The Non-Objective World: The Manifesto of Suprematism (Courier Corporation, 2003), 7-8.

[3] Gabriel Villalobos, A New Palpable World: The Counter Reliefs of Vladimir Tatlin (Harvard University, 2012), 4-5.

[4] E.F. Kovtun and Charlotte Douglass, Kazimir Malevich (Art Journal. Vol. 41, No.3, The Russian Avant-Garde, Autumn, 1981), 236.

[5] Kazimir Malevich, 235.

[6] A New Palpable World: The Counter Reliefs of Vladimir Tatlin, 16.

[7] A New Palpable World: The Counter Reliefs of Vladimir Tatlin, 16.