Guillaume

Every Thursday, I look forward to my History of Art class-- despite the fact that it lasts three hours-- because I love modern art. Although I have a very strong love-hate relationship with one particular classmate. His name is Guillaume. And he just doesn't get it.

This is my magnificent rendition of Guillaume:

I do not know of he smokes, but he probably does. Notice the ever-present scarf, purposefully messy, longer hair, the square glasses, and the ironic smirk. These are all key factors in truly understanding the phenomenon that is Guillaume.

I would be tempted to describe him as a "hater". Each class, he insists that there is no point to modern art. He insists that great works of art need no explination and they should be about depicting reality and should be about both objectification and personal skill.

Okay, Guillaume. Here's a test. Take this Pollock:

Then take this da Vinci:

Now, which one is more realistic?! Answer: neither. Neither one of these images is realistic at all. Guillaume loves the second, but despises the first. If you were from a different planet, which one would you understand better?

With the Pollock, the viwer is immersed in the painting and the colors evoke a palpable emotion.

With the da Vinci, there's a giant-ass swan... and naked, lots of naked. And some other things. It is all very beautiful, but what does it mean?!

Without the knowledge of Greek mythology, the second painting makes no sense. And without the knowledge of the "all over" technique or the concept of action painting, the first painting wouldn't make any sense. Art needs explination. And the PURPOSE of art is subjective expression. Duh, Guillaume!

Where is the objectivity in either one of these? He just doesn't get it.

Go study math or something, really.

He's all about hyperréalisme, which is really cool, but a bit too close to photography for me. Here's an example of what Guillaume adores (I know because he did a half-hour presentation on it today):

Yes, the above image is a painting. I can appreciate the amazing technique and the desire to submerge the viewer into the space. But don't hate on abstract expression.

Another thing that bugs me about Guillaume is he insists that classic art is permanent. No, Guillaume, everything on this good earth is ephemeral. And it is only with the Renaissance, and only with European art, that you get a since of permanence. All things pass. Ephemerality is what makes things beautiful. Get existential, Guillaume, and STOP HATING!!!

He's seriously in the wrong class.

Time to stop hating on the hater :)

On a happier note, students from the university art department posted some of their work today and I took pictures of the ones that really struck me this morning:

Tah-dah! Hooray for artsy posts!

Not sure what's on the agenda for tomorrow, but I'll try to make it interesting.