TOW #16: René Magritte's "Clairvoyance"

 "Clairvoyance" by Rene Magritte

"Clairvoyance" was painted by Magritte in 1936 in Brussels, Belgium.

http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/rene-magritte/clairvoyance-self-portrait-1936#supersized-artistPaintings-211326

Any artist during the surrealism period had to deal with the inevitable "I don't get it" response from many critics who still preferred less abstract art. Although René Magritte's work is not as abstract as that of many other surrealist artists, it was somewhat more controversial since it was so nearly non-surrealist. All of his work contains discernable parts that, if rearranged, would render his work to be non-surrealist. René Magritte is a Belgian surrealist artist who lived from 1898 to 1967. His work focuses on the idea of how people perceive reality. He is most well-known for his painting "The Treachery of Images" featuring the words "this is not a pipe" (in French) below what is clearly a pipe. Magritte studied art at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in Brussels. As of 2009, he has his own museum in Brussel. "Clairvoyance" is a painting featuring a painter who sees an egg but paints a bird. This painting has multiple purposes, all of which are intertwined. Explicitly, he wanted to convey the idea that artists do not always paint what they see, but rather what they can expect; perhaps, although the egg has not yet hatched, an artist can predict with (almost) absolute certainty what will be in the egg with only a bit of guesswork regarding the details of the bird, such as color, shape, and so on. After all, "clairvoyant" comes from clair voir, literally meaning "to see clearly," particularly involving the future. Implicitly, Magritte wanted to show the reader that the artist and the viewer can perceive reality differently, either as what is inevitable or as what is present. This piece was not composed for an audience who appreciates fine art, but rather an audience who appreciates thought-provoking work. Magritte is not applauded for his talent as much as his ingenuity through simplicity.  To achieve his purpose, Magritte uses techniques such as juxtaposition and realistic qualities. He juxtaposes the simple egg against a red background with a majestic, complex bird against a white background. This creates a feeling of admiration for the artist in the painting for his ability to see complexity in simplicity. His use of realistic qualities to offset the somewhat unrealistic factor to "Clairvoyance". Whereas the bird looks very realistic and detailed, it was drawn from an egg. I believe Magritte achieved his purpose because it was so simple that it allowed me to draw meaning from it without any confusion. He effectively conveyed a complex idea through a simple image. The primary reason I believe he achieved his purpose was due to his spectacular juxtaposition of the egg and the bird. 

TOW #15: Reverse-Engineering a Genius

Reverse-Engeneering a Genius

This is the painting by Johannes Vermeer that Tim Jenison recreated. 

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2013/11/vermeer-secret-tool-mirrors-lenses_slideshow_item4_5

Throughout history, artists have always belonged to a misunderstood culture. Very few find themselves in the spotlight, but when they do, the light surest is blinding. But what if "art" as we know it – the traditional form, with paints and a canvas – wasn't actually what we think it was? For artists like Renoir, Manet, Monet, da Vinci, and Michaelanglo, there has always been the assumption that their work was genuine and self-created. What if... it wasn't? Particularly in the peculiar case of Johannes Vermeer, who suddenly took to art at the age of 21 without any actual instruction. Did Vermeer even take to art in the first place? According to the latest information in art – rather, replication – he may have used a camera obscura to create a photo-like copy of a real scene. Upon visiting the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, Tim Jenison, a man who had worked with design theory nearly his entire life, remarked, "It looked to me like Vermeer was painting in a way that was impossible." In a breakthrough following months of speculation, Jenison figured out that he could use a small mirror, angled precisely, to recreate just about any image, despite his complete lack of artistic ability. To try to recreate one of Vermeer's "paintings," Jenison used his wealth to recreate the room shown in his painting to try his new technique. He even recreated 17th century mirrors and paints for the experiment. In the end, he was successful. He says he is now 95 percent sure. What does this mean for the world of art? In this essay, the author, Kurt Andersen, uses ancedotes and dramatic diction to make the reader, any art enthusiast, consider art theory as a whole. These two devices are used to create an intriguing, convincing essay by playing off the reader's natural desire for drama and controversy. Andersen is an American novelist, educated at Harvard University, who is primarily famous for his Peabody-winning radio show, Studio 360. I think Andersen's most effective device was his striking syntax. He bounced back and forth between sentence formats, playing particularly with sentence length for effect. Overall, a very interesting essay with much to consider.

TOW #14: 'Affluenza' isn't as crazy as it sounds

'Affluenza' isn't as crazy as it sounds

Russia Times reporting on the controversial case of Ethan Couch.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/16153654/image/102276016-ethan-couch-avoids-jail-time-thanks-to-affluenza-defense

"Affluenza" is a term coined in the 1970s to encapsulate an odd, "affluent-influenza" that supposedly affects young, wealthy kids and their lack of motivation due to a poor upbringing. A benign idea, until some desperate attorney pulls it out of nowhere to defend a minor accused of four counts of intoxicated manslaughter. In his article, Danny Cevallos attempts to explain the court system and why a bout of affluenza might actually be a legitimate mitigation of punishment. Danny Cevallos is a legal analyst that currently works for CNN. He is a criminal defense attorney, which qualifies him to talk about a recent court case involving 16-year-old Ethan Couch, charged with hitting and killing four innocent people while driving under the influence of alcohol. Couch walked away with 10 years of probation rather than 20 years of prison, primarily because of his claim of affluenza. Cevallos uses this incident to comment on several broader ideas regarding both affluent children and juvenile courts. His purpose is to explain the reasoning behind affluenza and – more importantly – to comment on the current state of the juvenile court system. Cevallos wrote his opinion editorial for a broad audience: anyone who is or knows a child, wealthy or not; anyone in the legal system as a whole; even anyone who has heard about the controversial case of Ethan Couch. To portray his view on the juvenile court system, Cevallos uses anecdote-like medical studies and his own personal knowledge on the defensive side on court cases with a focus on juvenile cases. Although Cevallos's article kept me interested, that wasn't his purpose. Considering the fact that Cevallos has experience in law and writing, this article should have been spot-on. However, I feel as though Cevallos set out with one purpose (to explain his view on affluenza) and ended up somewhat off topic (describing and revamping the entire juvenile court system). Regardless, I do think his use of medical studies as factual anecdotes was very effective at forwarding his purpose. 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/18/opinion/cevallos-case-for-affluenza/index.html?hpt=op_bn5