This is a reflective paper on my experiences from the class “Language of the Art”. In this paper, I discuss how my understanding and interest in art has shifted as the course progressed. I also discuss how I have been able to analyze different pieces of art and look at them in a new light; something I was unable to do in the past. 

 

I have never had much of an interest in art, mostly because it’s something I was never really introduced to, nor had I received much education on it. But after seeing the vast range of different types of art that exist in the world, I have noticed a slight increase in my interest towards it. Just seeing the different methods that are used to create the various types of art that exist is quite intriguing, and the hidden meaning that can only be seen with close analysis is also very interesting. It is easily noticeable to see when an artist dedicates much of his or her time to creating a masterpiece, and they are worthy of recognition. For example, God, Jan Van Eyck is a true masterpiece that is incredibly detailed and clearly took a lot of hard work and dedication to create, and I can say I truly love this piece. However, it is also easy to see when an artist puts little effort into a piece of art, and it is frustrating to see when they receive attention and praise for their works. For example, Supremist Painting, Black Rectangle, Blue Triangle by Kasmir Malevich is a plain, boring painting to look at, and I would say that I hate it. In general, I am a fan of paintings that are detailed and portray realism, but I hate paintings that show little effort and are left entirely to the viewer for interpretation.

As a Christian, I view religious paintings as beautiful and symbolic of my faith. Many artists have attempted to depict God in their paintings, but I think God by Jan Van Eyck, taken from The Ghent Altarpiece is the most successful portrayal. It is impossible to know for sure what God looks like, but this painting does an excellent job of capturing his divine grace. First, we notice that God is sitting on a throne of gold. He is also wearing a crown covered in beautiful jewels, and his clothing appears to be made of the finest materials, which is also covered in jewels and pearls. He also carries an elaborately decorated scepter. These all go together to portray God as the omniscient, almighty, one true king. Henry M. Sayre writes “Indeed, in the richness of his vestments, van Eyck’s God apparently values worldly things.” This is particularly interesting to me, because the jewels and clothes that God wears in the painting are things that were created by mankind, which suggests that he likes or is proud of the creations of his children. I like to see God portrayed in this way, because it is my belief that he is the one true king, and it makes sense that he would be wearing such fine clothing and jewels. Written above God’s head is “This is God, all powerful in his divine majesty; of all the best, by the gentleness of his goodness; the most liberal giver, because of his infinite generosity,” in Latin. I believe these words to be true, and I think the words really add to God’s portrayal of the almighty. The gold rays of light shining behind God’s head is another aspect of the painting that makes him appear holy and great, and the light rays also suggest that his head is the focal point of the painting. The way he has his hand up also suggests that he is giving a blessing, possibly to the viewer of the painting. Another thing I love about this painting is the incredible detail that is used. It is incredibly realistic, and every portion of the painting is detailed, from the jewels, to his face, and even his hand. I think this painting is also interesting because most people think of God as an old man with white hair, wearing plain white clothes, but in this painting, he looks fairly young, and he wears the finest clothing. In my opinion, this is a better portrayal of God than most others.

While I do appreciate an artists attempt to make the viewer have to interpret and analyze their paintings, I believe there is a point where it becomes a little ridiculous. I see many paintings that are incredibly plain and boring to look at, but it is the artists claim that it is up to the viewer to determine what the painting is. Or, the painting claims to give off certain illusions when the viewer looks at it in different contexts. Suprematist Painting, Black Rectangle, Blue Triangle is a perfect example of this. Henry M. Sayre writes that “Though it is a uniform blue, notice that the blue triangle’s color seems to be lighter where it is backed by the black rectangle, and darker when seen against the white ground.” He also says that “if you stare for a moment at the line where the triangle crosses from white to black, you will begin to see a vibration.” Personally, I don’t see any of these illusions. This painting really epitomizes why I hate many forms of nonrepresentational art. I see no creativity in the painting, there’s nothing particularly special about it, and it really seems like something a person with no artistic talent could create with a ruler and three paint colors. In truth, the fact that this painting has received praise actually annoys me, because I feel like I could create something like it, even though I possess no artistic abilities.

Viewing various types of art throughout the past semester has made me realize what types of art I love, and what types I hate. I really enjoy seeing religious paintings, and paintings that are incredibly detailed and realistic. God by Jan van Eyck perfectly embodies both of these characteristics, and that is why I love it so much. I have also come to the realization that I hate paintings that lack creativity and appear to be able to be created by anybody. I think an important aspect of art is that the viewer is supposed to be intrigued by it, and they are supposed to wonder how the artist could have possibly created it. I see none of those things in Suprematist Painting, Black Rectangle, Blue Triangle by Kasmir Malevich. I understand that it is meant to give off a certain illusion, but personally, I am not intrigued by it or even amused in any way by it like I am from some other paintings.

 

Works Cited

Sayre, Henry M. A World of Art. Boston: Pearson, 2016.