“Bizarreries cubiques” a statement used by a french critic to describe the very first works of a soon to be movement. This soon to be contemporary movement would become the most influential movement of the first half of the twentieth century. That statement was used to describe a cubist painters work. Cubism was so revolutionizing because it moved away from the general art form of that time. Not fully abstract but abstracted from the norm, cubism went against the traditional view of the artist subject. There was a sense , to quote Picasso, to realize forms which will have their own life to live, the painters moved away from the idea of following the traditional techniques of perspective and modeling. They worked with the two-dimensional plane,
…show more content…
and Pablo Picasso.Spanish,1881-1973.Pedestal Table, Glasses, Cups, Mandolin.1911. These two pictures are both through the mediums of oil on canvas. I picked these works but they are similar in the fact that they depict still works but it’s interesting that these two painters show different styles and it can be still considered a representation of Cubism. These two paintings are examples of analytic cubism in which their specific shapes and characteristic details such as mass and volume are viewed in a flattened point of view and painted incorporating a number of different elements such as with the usage of geometric shapes and the monochromatic color in a way that represent the whole object or person. In no way is this abstract art, even though sometimes the images are very hard to figure out, they are just developed from how the artist analyses the still …show more content…
The first was through the medium of oil on canvas while the latter was gouache and oil on tan wove paper. In the first painting The Smoker, Legar uses smoke to symbolize the working class and industrial life. Although the face of the subject cannot be fully seen there are puffs of smoke in the upper left corner. The body is the huge mass made out of the small, round curling parts. In the latter, Still life, majority of the objects painted cannot be identified. Instead he aimed for transforming “traditional chiaroscuro” which is the traditional use of contrasts of light to achieve a sense of volume and having the bold contrasts affect the whole composition. Legar placed black and white strokes to shadow and highlight and then surrounded them with black contour lines for a contrasting effect. Personally I found Fernand Legar the hardest painter to understand and comprehend what he wanted to express because it could be said that he was the closest among the cubist to developing a “purely abstract idiom”. In these two works specifically there is a sense of animation in them. Legar achieved this by using the contrast of light and dark, curved and straight lines, and planes and three- dimensional
and Pablo Picasso.Spanish,1881-1973.Pedestal Table, Glasses, Cups, Mandolin.1911. These two pictures are both through the mediums of oil on canvas. I picked these works but they are similar in the fact that they depict still works but it’s interesting that these two painters show different styles and it can be still considered a representation of Cubism. These two paintings are examples of analytic cubism in which their specific shapes and characteristic details such as mass and volume are viewed in a flattened point of view and painted incorporating a number of different elements such as with the usage of geometric shapes and the monochromatic color in a way that represent the whole object or person. In no way is this abstract art, even though sometimes the images are very hard to figure out, they are just developed from how the artist analyses the still …show more content…
The first was through the medium of oil on canvas while the latter was gouache and oil on tan wove paper. In the first painting The Smoker, Legar uses smoke to symbolize the working class and industrial life. Although the face of the subject cannot be fully seen there are puffs of smoke in the upper left corner. The body is the huge mass made out of the small, round curling parts. In the latter, Still life, majority of the objects painted cannot be identified. Instead he aimed for transforming “traditional chiaroscuro” which is the traditional use of contrasts of light to achieve a sense of volume and having the bold contrasts affect the whole composition. Legar placed black and white strokes to shadow and highlight and then surrounded them with black contour lines for a contrasting effect. Personally I found Fernand Legar the hardest painter to understand and comprehend what he wanted to express because it could be said that he was the closest among the cubist to developing a “purely abstract idiom”. In these two works specifically there is a sense of animation in them. Legar achieved this by using the contrast of light and dark, curved and straight lines, and planes and three- dimensional