THE ARTWORK:
James Rosenquist's F-111, a huge 86-foot artwork from 1964-5, was recently re-installed at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. In this blog entry, we will learn about and analyze the artwork. On Saturday, April 14th, you should make every effort to attend the school trip to MoMA where we can see this gigantic work in person. I will be on the trip.
THE ASSIGNMENT:
Watch the video and read the article below, then respond to the questions. You must enter two comments; 1) A comment in direct response to the video and reading, posing a hypothesis about the meaning of the artwork, and 2) One response to another students' comments. These comments are due BY 5PM WEDNESDAY APRIL 4th. I will be involved in the conversation, and will blog in response to your comments and questions.
NEXT WEEK:
Bring in three images you would like to juxtapose to create meaning or narrative. The images must be printed out from the Dell Color Laser printer (not your printer at home). At least one image must be your own photograph, a family photograph, or a photo taken by you.
Read:
Watch:
Images:
James Rosenquist, F-111, (American, b.1933), 1964-65. Oil on canvas with aluminum, twenty-three sections, 10 x 86'
A-OOO! FIRST!
ReplyDeleteAnyways, I thought it was interesting how Rosenquist was "inspired" by how people's tax money was being used by the government to fund and build these planes for the purpose of war, and how he in turn created a piece that served as a means of protesting.
I also like how the piece has a sort of subliminal form being that it's comprised up of a series of seperate images that help to form the general shape of a F-111 plane. Also, some of the images create spaces or gaps that break the general shape of the plane, and yet we/I see through those gaps (if that makes any sense).
I agree the painting does have a sort of subliminal form to it. the painting was not intended to be a form of protest but he did catch the things that happens in the cold war in his painting like the F-111 and the nuclear blast and plus Vietnam war just started when the painting was made. Cole
Deletein the response to the readings and readings to james Rosenquist art work the painting is named after a plane called F-111 which is a fighter plane used by the U.S air force.the painting was made during the cold war in which explians the nucler blast and F-111. the U.S Economy is also mentioned in the video is also in the painting in respones to the U.S taxes dollers being used to build this police.this painting was also created in the Beginning of the Vietnam war. poeple veiw the painting as a anti-war even Though its not the intention of the painting. cole
ReplyDeleteHi guys- I will be posting intermittently from the airport/plane:
ReplyDeleteSo what do you guys think of the colors?? Everything is a cheery fluorescent, the colors of beach balls and children's toys. But do the colors sometimes turn to clashing, glaring colors? Acidic and hard to look at? Why do you think Risenquist might have used these colors? How do they make the images different to you?
-Tiffany
Cole-
ReplyDeleteIf Rosenquist's intention with the artwork wasn't to be explicitly anti-war, what do you think his idea was? How do you respond to the juxtaposition of children, home life, fighter pilots and bombs?
-Tiffany
I thought he was just protest the wastefulness of the america's tax dollars on a plane that just went obsolete before it was even built and plus i thought at the end of the video he said it was not a anti-war painting.
DeleteI do feel as though the bright cheery colors (coupled with the size of the piece) helps to give the piece that advertisement feel that Rosenquist discussed in the article. Let me take another look at the pictures to answer your second part.
ReplyDeleteYes! Good observation: it's a billboard. But what is being advertised??
Delete-Tiffany
Hmmm, I would say it could be seen as advertising the war in a positive and creative light, that is if the piece was done as a piece of commercial art like an actual billboard supporting war. Although, I suspect this was something Rosenquist intended as a sort of parody of war.
DeleteI noticed that on the spagetti part of the piece that the majority of the, uh, noodles were yellow and red (generally speaking) but towards the bottm left of that part the color sort of shifts to a light metallic blue which I feel was meant to present a sort of industrial presence.
ReplyDeleteCody I didnt even realize that. Thanks for bringing that up, it makes me think about that part a little more. It has a sense of maybe the uncertainty. Because remember he said the F-111 was suppose to create jobs and provide for families, but no one really knew for sure, so maybe food in relation to providing for was uncertian, hence the gradiation in color to black and white. - Nafisah
DeleteI like both your comments about parody, above, and your observation of the spaghetti turning into something metallic, tubing, it such an interesting transformation of a common form.
Delete-Tiffany
*thumbs up*
DeleteI like how Rosenquist had a meaning to every image he chose. For example, the girl under the hair dryer is the pilot while the images above were the crown. Although he did not intend to come off as anti-war, most people would think he is against war because he says that the tax money is going to the government to pay for these fight planes. It's interesting how Rosenquist chose such bright colors for a fighter plane used in war. I think he chose such bright colors as a use of irony because it may seem it is a uplifting, cheerful painting, but the meaning behind it is about the war and the use of taxes going towards these planes. If the images were darker, I don't think it would impact me as much because you would connect the images (such as the nuclear explosion) to war. On the other hand, the dramatic colors make it harder to figure out what is going on in the painting. -Desiree
ReplyDeleteI agree that the color scheme is an important aspect of the piece as a whole and the message conveyed by the piece. If Rosenquist had opted for a darker color scheme, then the overall impression created by the piece might have been that the F-111 is/was a gritty instrument of death............................
DeleteDesiree,
DeleteI agree with your comments and political view. The painting hues are very saturated from what I can see from the photos which sends a happy message. The political statement is serious and meaningful today. There are multi-billion dollar military systems years behind schedule and cost overruns. We could use that money to build a student study hall in the arts building.
- Ken
Also, the color scheme seems to add to the whole part of paying for the F-111 and building it is part of daily expediencies. All machines used in war like the F-111 are a gunmetal gray but you wouldn't buy a sun dress or a brand new car or have a advertisement in that color would you?? No, because the bright hues make a fighter jet that can bring about destruction and goriness that looks like spaghetti seem homely and innocent. You care about making sure this gets done if it is candy red or bright yellow.
DeleteYes, good thoughts Desiree,
ReplyDeleteThe irony of the fighter jet being cheerful colors - might it also reflect the public's divorce from a war ( we can't really understand how terrible the reality is, nor so we want to), or, does t hint at the propaganda a government uses to convince us that a war is justifiable, necessary, a good thing to do?
-Tiffany
I think we should all consider Rosenquists statement that this is not. An anti-war painting. Clearly, there are some uncomfortable juxtapositions (little girl and bomb), and some inherent ceiticism. I think Rosequist doesn't want the artwork REDUCED to an anti-war statement. It's more complicated than that. The viewer is implicated you are a part of the complicity to go to war. Also, criticism about suburbia ad how we live removed from war are in here. This piece is less pointing a finger of blame, and more about asking questions. What do you guys think?
ReplyDeleteWell, I feel like a dumby for saying it was anti-war-related. I need to read more carefully.
DeleteBut Cody, I think it is. Just not in a straight-forward, over-simplified "war is bad" kind of way. In a more complicated way.
Delete-Tiffany
I agree where it is too stifling to call it anti-war painting but it has to do with the war in regard to that being a daily thought or effect in people's mind; it is always on the news and you always talk about it (women at the hair dresser getting their hair done discussing everything from their new babies to the war) or see it (gory pictures of dead soldiers with guts that look like mangled spaghetti).
DeleteWe're taking off so I have to turn off my device. I'll post again when we reach altitude!
ReplyDelete-Tiffany
Where is everybody else?
ReplyDeletewait... what time were we supposed to be on this thing?
ReplyDelete-kevin
Our comments are supposed to be in by 5pm today. I started at 1.
DeleteHi everyone-I'm back.
ReplyDeleteRosenquist comments that when he originally installed the work at the Leo Castelli gallery in New York, he was concerned with surrounding the viewer and engaging their peripheral vision. This seems interesting on a couple of fronts:
1) As it relates to pilots. According to Wikipedia; "Central vision is relatively weak at night or in the dark, when the lack of color cues and lighting makes cone cells far less useful. Rod cells, which are concentrated further away from the retina, operate better than cone cells in low light. This makes peripheral vision useful for seeing movement at night. In fact, pilots are taught to use peripheral vision to scan for aircraft at night."
2) Metaphorically: Sometimes when we are concentrating on one thing (in life in general), other things distract us or call for our attention from our periphery. There are always things happening in our periphery that aren't the main events in our lives, but may be affecting us nonetheless.
-Tiffany
Hmm, interesting, but I'm still slightly confused. So, if our peripheral vision is more useful when it's darker, why did Rosenquist use such bright colors? Could he have used low lighting to present his piece rather than fully lighting the entire piece?
DeleteThis really helps to understand the whole peripheral vision aspect more. Its kinda subliminal again, they didnt really know what was going on when the planes were being built, if it was good or bad. your everyday life will distract you from what is really going on. - Nafisah
DeleteI wish I could see this in person bc I feel like it would change my perception. But, it definately feels like a scatterbrained billboard.
ReplyDelete-kevin
I agree with you. The fact that is has this billboard stature, I'd prefer to see it in person. I have a feeling that looking at it in person, from one end to the other. Would give me a better feel for how the piece creates it's message.
Delete~Joe
I'll be back, folks. I'm going to go vacuum my house so I don't wake up with bruises tomorrow morning.
ReplyDeleteWe should also think about the following distinction: In the Art in America article, F-111 is described as a "potent critique of American Militarism" - which is different from an anti-war statement. Rosenquist mentions the people building the F-111 so they can have their 2.3 kids and 3.5 cars and picket fences - the military industrial complex that creates jobs. But that creates jobs out of American tax dollars. The irony of the collector who eventually bought the piece, said Rosenquist, was that whoever it was would already have purchased an F-111 through their tax dollars.
ReplyDelete-Tiffany
Kevin- come on the trip to the Museum of Modern Art on April 14th and you'll get to see the painting in person
I don't even know where to start with this piece, it truly is a work of art. James Rosenquist has an explanation for every piece of of the art work, from the F-111 being created for the people to have jobs and provide for there family to having to do with the governmental issue of taxing. But what I found interesting is without listening to the audio or reading the article, the piece gives you a story and subliminal message.
ReplyDeleteIf looked at in segments you will never see the F-111 he is talking about, you have to stand back and absorb what is being portrayed. The bright colors and the randomness throw us off giving a sense of confusion to me, I think what he was trying to do was portray the fact of when this was built no one really knew if it was going to be something good or bad for the people, it was just stated it will be good for our families and economic stability, hence the child as a pilot and then the every day objects had to do with our day to day lives that surround us while all of building was going on. All of this, that was going on, was then put over the meaning or cause for ruckus, which was F-111.
Although it is great to see it in a picture, I think It would really be interesting to see it in person to get the people for what he was trying to portray. - Nafisah
You're right Nafisah-
DeleteThe composition utilizes colors which are nearly equal in saturation, all calling for our attention at once. Sound familiar?
And yes, we can't see the F-111 when hidden behind fragments and seen in sections.
-Tiffany
James Rosenquist, F-111, painting is clearly and activist statement. Rosenquist should be applauded for leveraging his experience with sign and mural painting for delivering such an effective message. The hue saturation, scale and content are screaming for society and the government to rethink useless expensive military development. The collage perspective is hard to view using photos. I would like to see the piece up close and personal.
ReplyDeleteRosenquist inspiration is still an issue today. Multi-billion dollar weapons systems under development for decades with little opportunity for practical application, because the military landscape has changed and the systems purpose is now obsolete.
Enough about politics, Picasso’s painting of the old woman with a glazed eye is interesting and difficult to look at. The different warm and cool hue schemes deliver levels of emotion. The warm red hue is direct in your face kind of scary view.
From a formal perspective the painting is naturalistic and successfully accomplishes the goal of sadness, fear, poverty or defiance. Using a limited number of hues and glazing creates a monochromatic image. The counters are clear and flow with natural curves required for naturalistic face of the subject. The value change in the subjects face forces the viewer direct to the glazed eye.
Ken Johnson
Yes, Ken - weapons systems development. An interesting issue. Also, the technological approach to war (bombing from afar using drones), it makes us even more removed from the acts, the deaths, the reality, the money even. It moves even further into our "periphery"...
Delete-Tiffany
Mrs. C!! Hope the West Coast is awesome and watch your usage of the colors blue and red. Sorry I am late to the party I was sleeping and looking into this whole thing. First off the piece is awesome I wish it was made into wallpaper so I can put it in my room. Secondly, I had a hard time figuring out all the places it moved and who really owns it now. But I digress let’s get to business:
ReplyDeleteI think the piece was made as a subliminal revolt to the mid 60's and became an ICONIC [<--- I get an A for usage right?? :) :)] painting which could tell about life in the '60's. The painting has to do a lot with economy and present and future tense. Economically, the F-111 plane was something that all Americans spent money on due to taxes as if it was a necessity. When this painting was completed the F-111 was in pre-production and flew in 1967 with no success and broke into the starting lineup of fighter planes in 1971. So during that time, Americans would allocate money for basic needs: groceries/housewares (light bulb, egg, spaghetti), automobile maintainence (tire "crown"), extras (getting hair done), and taxes (F-111). The "baby pilot" showed to me the young person’s fighting in the war as well as the baby boomers era ending (looking it up, I found it was 1946-64) and maybe even a future foreshadow to what will children be doing in 20-30 years (stuck in war and fighting; times were uncertain with communism running rampid) This brings about the future tense and showing atomic holocaust with the scuba diver and mushroom cloud; violence will be the theme of the future. The spaghetti eerily seems to hint at blood and guts as it is surrounded by mushroom clouds and the umbrella shows a shelter from it all; most likely having to do with Cuba's spot in history of being an ally of the Soviet Unions and being able to send missiles to the East Coast of the USA. This painting is when people witnesses an atomic bomb being dropped on Japan and the fear of war and enemies seemingly sprouting up everywhere (Vietnam, Korea, USSR) and in our backyard (Cuba) where we won't be able to relax (scuba diving - stress less/fun and no air underwater and above water after atomic fallout) and be in a constant state of fear. This painting came back at the right time (or could have been sooner) because it seems to fit in perfectly with our lives now: we spend money on commodities and the war machine and with all the violence and technology, what will become of the future??
FORGOT TO TALK ABOUT THE COLORS!!!!
DeleteSorry, I loved them and the article said he used different tools like the Italian paint roller and paint used on jukeboxes while still keeping a '60's vibe billboard theme to it. A lot of the colors give a warning as well like the reds, yellows in the middle part.
Yes! Spaghetti as guts, I've always seen it that way ,too. Whose entry is this? Sign your name so I can give you credit.
Delete-Tiffany
oops forgot that as well
DeleteThomas Orrico
I appreciated the symbolism that the swimmer had. Gasping for air to survive can be stressful, it creates a state of panic. This represents a major moment in ones life, which is fight or flight. But when you're dealing with the elements, you're usually outmatched and only have chance to hold on to. When against or apart of something that's grand in it's own right (like politics, war, etc.)You're often in confusion or in search of the best possible answer. When gasping for air, you're confused as to what to do and you're looking for the best way out the situation. That in itself is powerful. I find that what truly makes this such a good piece is it's way of displaying multiple sides, whilst using no words. The warm and welcoming colors set a happier tone, like you'd see in an ad. Even though there are happy or harmless images such as the girl and the food, the overall can be sought as dark.I believe that this piece is supposed to be a representation of how war affects the economy, in relation to how a general mass may view it.
ReplyDelete~Joe
Interesting connection regarding coming up for air....
DeleteYea I second that I did not even thing about the whole sink or swim situation
DeleteHahaha! I love how everyone is commenting the last 30 minutes or so before the deadline.
ReplyDeleteI had no choice, my laptop wasn't showing or playing that stupid "CAPTCHA" bs. I had wait for my friend get off of work, so he could come pick me up. Either that or I would've had to walk across town to use the library. I've been keeping up with the discussion since 3-something.
Delete~Joe
Okay, well, I just meant as a whole, not anyone in particular.
DeleteGood conversation, everyone. Come on the bus trip to MoMA on Saturday April 14th to see the real thing in person!!
ReplyDeleteAlso, think about how this might affect your final project - the Artist Book - might you do an accordion-foldout piece with this many elements integrated, stretching out to 6, 8, 10 feet?
-Tiffany
Yes, Cody, you win.
ReplyDeleteWin what? I didn't realize this was a competition.
DeleteI guess he/she mean first post wins?? haha
DeleteMrs. C, would their be any other time to see this or is the 14 the only day?? I am just double checking because I can't go on the 14th but I really want to see this piece and might go on the 15th.