Author: Ghada Emish

I liked the emphasis on identity in The Arrival. Issues that immigrants face settling in a new country and communicating with people from different backgrounds are all challenges to one’s national and personal identity. There are multiple profiles of people from diverse ethnicities at the beginning and end of the book in order to provoke thinking about identity. Also, there are multiple profile-like pictures of the protagonist on his own in different moments, with different facial expressions, all of which in my opinion are for the purpose of establishing sympathy with the protagonist and provoking viewers to relate to his ordeals.

I find the large panels as useful and insightful as the small ones, for each size its own purpose: the large ones feature the scenes of the city or the station to introduce viewers to the place where the protagonist just arrived, and the small ones, or some of them, are like “close-ups” of moments in which viewers need are urged to study the scene meticulously.

I think juxtaposition plays a very important role in the narrative of Asterios Polyp. One part showed the natural human side of a married couple in an intimate fashion (in 2 pages only) that is truly transparent and unforgettable. I think comics like Asterios Polyp are a powerful representation of the idea of narrative, there is a great reliance on the ability of the audience  to make conclusions about the structure and the characters. I appreciated the fact that there was a strong sense of characters, i could imagine how each character sounded like in reality mostly because of the articulated facial expressions.

I did not really understand why and how Asterios’ twin showed up and controlled everything instead of him (it would be great if anyone reflects on that).

To me, it seems that there is a significant link between collage and the manipulative way the media presents the news sometimes. I also remember one of the first articles we read for Mitchell, Ekphrasis and the Other, which emphasized the inseparability of some artworks from topics related to socio-political, gender-related and racial issues.

The first time I viewed Une Semaine de Bonte, I did not know it was a collage, nor did I know what a collage is, but I thought that Ernst’s style is certainly very strange in the way he juxtaposes different drawings or illustrations. After realizing that Une Semaine de Bonte is a collage, it made sense to me that the exaggerated interactions between the characters seemed strange (like the woman lying in a bed with a man gazing at her from behind the bars of a cage P. 49), it also made sense that the scene itself was not conceived in Ernst’s mind, perhaps only an idea of the argument he wanted to convey. I thought it was extremely unlikely for someone to blend these elements from different worlds into one scene.

I think the idea of collage evokes the purposeful way the media spreads the news to fix certain arguments. The media present pieces of news in a certain proportion, the crew chooses the images very selectively depending on the reaction they would like to evoke from the audience and they place different degrees of emphasis on the different pieces of news in order to direct viewers’ attention in a certain way. For example, last week there was a major controversy in Egypt about the transition of two islands, Tiran and Sanafir, in the Red Sea from Egyptian to Saudi Arabian property, some people protested against this decision, which the President took without referring to the Parliament’s opinion. However, the Daily News on the Egyptian national TV channel only hosted some politicians and strategist thinkers to analyse the president’s decision in flowery language that praised the benefits such a decision contributes to Egyptian political situation! There was no mention of the protests or of opposing views to the President’s decision. In this sense, the media seeks to link the news it presents to ideas of approval or rejection, optimism or pessimism. 

I am truly intrigued by the ability of collage artists to juxtapose cultural and socio-political symbols in order to communicate their arguments effectively. Like the media, collage has the ability to make implicit links among many topics, which is why viewers need to be very careful in their assessment of collage works and the messages that they carry to society. Ernst does make a link to women as being used to men in power or very abusive of men’s sexual appeal to them. Till now, I am not sure if this is a critical argument or if he truly means to objectify women.

I believe Ernst was influenced by Darwinism in his portrayal of women. There is a very significant quality about Victorian dressing style that Ernst uses to imply that women are acting in an animalistic manner by deceiving men into thinking they are benign, sweet creatures. The exaggerated size of the dresses, on pages 102 & 103 for instance, enlarge women’s size and make them  more immense than men. I find the elevated back of the women’s dresses kind of ridiculous: the dress looks like a camel’s back! I think Ernst suggests a connection between the appearance of animals and the behavior of women, women borrow the large appearance of animals to feel more significant and influence men with their seemingly charming looks. I came to this interpretation after looking at the way Ernst replaced body parts of men and women with these of animals, Ernst’s portrayal seemed too flexible and blunt to just mean a reference to animal-like behavior in humans, particularly women. In Page 98, the shape of the reptile is very similar to the shape of the women’s dresses, one almost thinks that the curled part of the woman’s dress on the right is the reptile’s tail, which looks like a fish’s tail, one that a reptile would not have. However, according to Darwinism, reptiles evolved from fish.

The presence of common ancestors between humans and animals allowed artists great flexibility in the way they characterized human behavior; the connection between animals and humans seemed more direct after Darwinism, in my opinion.

 

What I mostly admired about Yun-Fei’s The Intimate Universe is that it triggered interesting and significant questions about a critical social issue that has been spreading around the globe: the replacement of countryside with urban areas regardless of whatever cultural values lost in process. This is a terrifying modern threat that has been progressing since early 20th-century. While I believe that the abandonment of heritage has started with Futurism, what I would like to discuss here is the responsibility of artists toward the pressing social issues they observe in society.

The local people in The Intimate Universe seemed quite alienated because they were forced to leave their only home. I heard from Katherine Alcauskaus, Collections and Exhibitions Specialist at the Wellin, that the baskets portrayed in the paintings are characterized by different weaving styles, in fact, each tribe in the Chinese countryside has its own unique style of weaving baskets, this emphasizes the richness of these people’s cultures and how pitiful it is that their heritage is being neglected as if it is not a valuable part of the country’s heritage and history. Even though people have advanced in the use of technological devices to build big cities, they are drastically ignorant when it comes to the cultural aspect. Yun-Fei was fortunate enough to be introduced to the countryside world when he was growing up, but people our age in China would not have the chance, so the government has robbed this generation of a valuable cultural experience in the name of “urbanization.” This led me to think about the significance of art and the value it gives to society.

Goya’s Caprichos also provide insightful social critique. I mostly find Correction a great representation of the delusive power of the church in the pope’s seemingly benign look.

So did Rembrandt provide remarkable social critique when he portrayed the deplorable condition of 17th-century beggars in Europe in a beautifully humane style, which we can see in Peasant Family on the Tramp, unlike his contemporaries and predecessors, like Jacques Callot, who portrayed beggars as repulsive, lacking creatures as we can see in Beggars with Crutches and Wallet . This is the artist’s responsibility toward society that has greatly diminished in the modern age.

I am mostly confused about what has changed to make art in the modern age mostly about entertainment when social problems have only increased and intensified.

 

I have been thinking about the reason artists use printmaking to produce their works when they could draw sketches. I remembered Rembrandt, by whom Goya was influenced, and his innovative use of the medium, Rembrandt revolutionized printmaking by simple additions that made a drastic difference in his art. Rembrandt used a soft ground of his own devising to protect the acid plate which allowed him great flexibility in his use of the etching needle that is close to that of drawing with a crayon. Rembrandt’s lines were quite flexible and his influence on Goya is clear. It is mostly clear in the way his portrayal of the grotesque is mitigated, the wrinkles in the old people’s faces in Correction do not make looking at them difficult for the audience, but the point about their old age or being metamorphoses is delivered.

This self-portrait by Rembrandt demonstrates his flexible technique and his mastery of portraying vivid emotions on his subject’s face, the expression is quite bewildering, it could be disbelief or fear or a mix of both.

In Goya’s Correction the demon figures are drawn in a flexible technique that is close to Rembrandt’s style and the difference in focus between the demons, the shady figures to the left and the white figures in the right side could be inspired by Rembrandt’s style.

Apparently, artists used printmaking because it mostly allowed for a freedom and subtlety that is not found in un-colored sketches. Rembrandt is a pioneer of printmaking although he is not one of the very first artists who devised this technique. Even in techniques so flexible as Goya’s viewers can have some idea of visual textuality: the difference in focus between the characters, the careful distortion of the people’s features in a way not too repulsive, but just enough to drive his point home, the balance in the arrangement of characters (notice how there are two white figures to the right, two shady figures to the left),  and the juxtaposition of all such elements produces the illustration of an idea that does not need words to be clear, it is readable on its own if viewers are familiar with the social context from which the idea comes. This reveals how printmaking is quite an intelligent practice.

However, does that mean that every artist, in printmaking or painting, had visual textuality on mind when he was composing an artwork?

After looking at some of Goya’s prints, I started thinking that his illness provided him with a great advantage that enabled him to produce impressively critical works. Goya’s illustrations are characterized by penetrating sharpness, their effect is quite resonant and this primarily stems from the fact that they demonstrate a strong voice. Goya’s prints are quite lively, the people’s expressions are effectively articulated on their faces and there is a strong impression of texture, both which affect the viewers intensely. In my opinion, this sharp effect was purposefully incorporated by Goya as a way to transmit the irony of his opinions after he was inflicted with deafness. Goya’s illness made him secluded to some extent from the world around him and must have provided him with a different vintage point in his viewing of society.

While viewing a picture of crucified Jesus, it occurred to me that the purpose of radical representation in Western artistic tradition is somewhat protective. It is possible that the monks did not want Christians to forget how they saw Jesus, they wanted to make sure he would be remembered in a certain way and documented their theories through representational illuminations by conveying them to artists.  Jesus is usually depicted with his slender form, his head tilted to his right in a submissive attitude that implies satisfaction by God’s will, with the sky as background in most illuminations, all which convey a strong sense of perspective tailored by the monks (I am unsure about the historical starting point of these illuminations, whether it is the Middle Ages or the Renaissance or something else). The monks could have deduced this perspective from the Bible, the only thing that lies in question is that the Bible was not interpreted until after the invention of the printing press by Gutenberg, meaning that the representations of Jesus in art could be interpreted as an attempt on behalf of the monks to “confirm” the supremacy of Christianity compared to other religions.

I find the I Am Red chapter to be truly compelling. Mostly the sentence: “explain red to somebody who has never known red” (187). I have  never thought about the meaning of a color, rather I have thought about the sensation it evokes when seen and contemplated, how that differentiates it from other colors and how this sensation identifies smart juxtapositions with objects and other colors. But I agree with the man who thinks red can be described to somebody whose eyes have never fallen upon it. I am inclined to think this way because the way Red talked about himself before the argument between the two apprentices suggested that if red is to be defined then this definition encompasses premises a lot more essential than the description of a degree of intensity on a chromatic spectrum. Red can be felt in fury, passion and death, all emotionally-charged themes that are part of everybody’s life and that we usually think about or come across on a daily basis. Meaning that colors are a way through which we express ourselves, at times, we put on clothes of certain colors that reflect our temper and feelings.

Colors are a language not just at the service of the talented artists, but also one in favor of granting people a rich mode of expression, therefore, colors cannot be limited to people who can encounter them visually.