WMoorefilmsaboutpaintings-f23

  Film 3: Painters Painting 1. What does the intro mean about the “issue with subject matter”? The intro talks about how American painters were trying to figure out what to paint and why, especially as they moved away from traditional subjects like portraits or landscapes. Artists like Pollock showed that the act of painting itself could be the subject. Instead of painting something specific, they focused on emotions and the process. 2. Why did Rauschenberg erase a drawing by de Kooning? Rauschenberg erased de Kooning’s drawing to turn destruction into creation. It was his way of challenging what art is and who gets to define it. By choosing a respected artist’s work to erase, he made a bold statement about originality, process, and how art can be redefined. 3. Is it better or worse hearing the artist speak in their own words? Hearing the artist speak for themselves makes the film feel more real and personal. Even though some of the language is hard to follow, it’s better than havi...

  Film 2:  Pollock At the start of the film, the words spoken over Pollock’s painting seem to give us a window into how he views art—not as something clean or structured, but as something emotional and deeply personal. It feels like he’s saying that painting is more about expressing what’s going on inside of him than trying to show the outside world. Later, around the 2:50 mark, Pollock’s craft statement brings a different tone—here, he talks about the techniques he uses and how there’s actually a method behind all the chaos in his work. The contrast is pretty striking; the intro is more about the feeling, while the craft statement focuses on the practice. Watching Pollock physically paint and hearing him talk adds a new layer to understanding his work. It’s not just about looking at a finished piece—it’s about seeing the action, the movement, and the intensity he brings to the canvas. You really start to feel how involved he was in the process, almost like the act of painting...

  FILM 1: DALI  Surrealist films, especially ones inspired by Salvador Dalí, can be really hard to watch because they don’t follow the typical story structure we’re used to. This can make the viewer feel uncomfortable or thrown off. One way this happens is through weird or exaggerated costumes—like oversized clothes or outfits that don’t match—making things feel even more unreal. For example, in  Un Chien Andalou , the woman’s outfit in the eye-slicing scene is nothing special, but the fact that something so violent is happening in such an ordinary setting makes it even more shocking. Dalí’s own style in his films and interviews is also super dramatic and strange—like when he says, “The only difference between a madman and I is that I am not mad or was expereincing symtoms to show signs of madness versus were the artist expressed theses signs based on visual portraits such as the example below .” That kind of statement blurs the line between what’s real and what’s just pe...

  1. Discuss Schnabel's point (in your own words) about painting vs film.  Schnabel's point about painting versus film is that he sees painting as a more direct and immediate form of personal expression, like playing an instrument, while filmmaking is a collaborative process of translating ideas through constructed images. 2. Discuss the mountain climber metaphor - and how it is different / similar to other artists we have discussed. The mountain climber metaphor, as used in the documentary, illustrates the artist's difficult ascent towards creative achievement, a concept common to many artists, though the specific challenges and individual approaches to that climb differ significantly 3.  How does this documentary deal with expertise and point of view? (hint: Scorsese is not an art historian) This documentary deals with expertise and point of view by including diverse perspectives, such as Scorsese's filmmaker's lens, alongside art historians and other experts,...

  1. Who made this documentary? Why should we believe their story? If you never see the narrator but only the interview subjects does it change how you perceive the stories? it's the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation). This is significant. The BBC is generally known for its journalistic standards, commitment to accuracy, and historical documentaries. This lends credibility to the production.We should believe their story because  BBC's reputation for factual reporting . Likely use of expert interviews (art historians, curators, artists themselves , Potential use of archival footage or images to support the claims , The BBC often cites its sources and strives for balance. A lack of a traditional narrator can create a sense of immediacy and authenticity. It allows the viewer to connect directly with the subjects' experiences and perspectives. It can make the documentary feel less like a lecture and more like a collection of personal stories. 2. Have you ever seen this pain...

  1. Which is your favorite Van Gogh self-portrait painting? Why? How was it made? How does it control your eye? When you look, what do you see first? second? Does it bother you that Van Gogh refused to be photographed? Which is your favorite sunflower painting? Why? How was it made? How does it control your eye? When you look, what do you see first? second? What does it mean to you?      My favorite Van Gogh self-portrait is "Self-Portrait with Bandaged Ear." I love it because the colors are so intense, and it really captures his emotional state at the time. The bandage adds a layer of intrigue and makes me wonder about the story behind it. Van Gogh used oil paints on canvas, and you can see his signature brushstrokes that create texture and depth. He often painted from life, which gives his work a sense of immediacy. The way he positioned himself and the contrasting colors draw the viewer's eye straight to his face first, then to the bandage, which is rea...