Dalí claimed that he wanted to be a cook when he was 6 years old. He fulfilled that dream in 1973 with the publication of “Les Dîners de Gala,” a surrealist cookbook that feels more like a work of art than a cookbook. I’ll be recreating some of the recipes in here, so stay tuned! 👩🍳
This is part 3 of “How to Look at Art.” In this post, I’m gonna teach you how to do interpretative analysis.
So, you’ve gazed at the artwork for a long time (maybe a scary amount of long time), you’ve read a couple books and done some research, you know the gist of the artwork, so what’s next?
Well, now we want to know what’s so significant about this artwork. This leads us to our final mode of analysis: interpretative.
This is, basically, just a fancy word to ask, “how do we interpret this piece?” This is when you can start bringing in philosophy and critical theory and things like that.
Some questions you can ask yourself when going through an interpretative analysis are:
What is the artist trying to say in this work?
What is the person who commissioned this piece trying to say about themselves?
What does this artwork say about the human condition at the time it was made?
What does this artwork say about the location, people, culture, locate, etc.?
This is when theories regarding all the -isms come into play and then you really get to engage with this piece of work.
This is Part 2 of my “How to Look at Art” series. I’m introducing you to the second part of how to look at art, contextual analysis.
So, what is a contextual analysis?
This is the part of the process where you’re going to have to do a little bit of research to try to figure out what the hell does this piece even mean.
Some questions you can use to start off with your research are:
What time period is it from?
What date was it created?
Who’s the artist?
What culture did the piece or artist come from?
Where’s the artwork now?
Who commissioned the piece?
What’s being depicted?
What’s the provenance of the piece?
Lots and lots of questions!
There are so many different questions here that you can ask in the contextual analysis, but once you start with a few different ones, they will lead you into what you need to know.
At the end of the day, the contextual analysis is just to help you further understand the piece and it’ll lead into the 3rd part of analysis: the interpretative analysis.
Hey everybody, Amara here! What does the historic Chicago Theatre have to do with Walt Disney?
The theatre was built in 1921 by noted architecture duo, Rapp & Rapp.
With the increasing popularity of film throughout the 1920s, movie theater architecture was evolving rapidly, and Rapp & Rapp were the most sought-out architects for movie palaces.
They designed many notable theaters throughout the city of Chicago including the Tivoli, Oriental, and Uptown theatres!
And they didn’t just stay in Chicago! Throughout their career, they designed over 400 theatres throughout the country!
When it was built, The Chicago Theatre was one of the largest movie palaces in the country boasting a nearly 4,000-seat theater.
Something to know about movie palaces at this time is that a lot of them had different decorative theming. A lot of these were really harmful orientalist depictions of different cultures. The Chicago Theatre, though, was decorated in a French style.
The arch on the front of the building was based on the Arc de Triomphe. The Grand Lobby was modeled after J.H. Mansart’s chapel at Versailles. The Grand Staircase is modelled after that of the Paris Opera House, and there were also Louis XIV furnishings throughout the theater!
The interior lobby even included large French-themed murals created by Chicago artist Louis Grell.
Now, get this, Grell allegedly taught Walt Disney when he attended school here in Chicago, but that’s a story for another time.
Also, fun fact, the “Y” that is in the center of the marquee? That is actually the official logo for the city of Chicago. I have a full post on that on my blog, so go check it out!
This is part 1 of “How to Look at Art.” In the field of art history, there is a generally agreed upon system of “looking” at art. In this post, I’m introducing you to the first part: formal analysis.
So, what is a formal analysis?
A formal analysis normally consists of looking at the physical characteristics of an artwork. And this isn’t just relegated to painting. It’s typically for all artwork!
Some things to consider when you’re performing a formal analysis are:
Line
Shape
Texture
Medium Scale
Figurative or non-figurative
Color
A formal analysis matters! It matters because by identifying specific figures, places, mediums, colors, subject matters, etc., this will help you understand the context which will help you further understand this piece.
Wanna strengthen your formal analysis chops? I have an exercise for you! Stare at an artwork for 30 seconds. Now, write down everything you noticed. Next, stare at that same piece for 2 minutes now. Did you notice a lot more in those 2 minutes?
Let me know your results in the comments below! Tata! 🙂
Did you know that the peace sign was possibly influenced by this famous painting?
The peace sign symbol was created in 1958 by Gerald Holtom for the British nuclear disarmament movement.
Holtom presented it to the Direct Action Committee on February 21, 1958 where it was “immediately accepted” as the symbol for a march that was to protest atomic weapons.
The symbol is a super-imposition of the flag semaphore for the characters “N” and “D” to stand for “nuclear disarmament.”
Holtom, though, has also claimed that he was inspired by the central figure in Francisco de Goya’s painting “The Third of May 1808.”
He claims to have been so captured by the despair of the central figure that he created the symbol to have arms up.
Not wanting to suggest despair, though, he allegedly changed it so that the arms pointed down, a symbol of hope.
It was a very popular symbol and was quickly adopted by many other anti-war movements throughout the 1960s, hence its popularity throughout the ‘60s.
Today, the original design for the peace sign is in the Peace Museum in Bradford, England.
This, my dear friends, is a parking garage located at 60 E. Lake St. in Chicago. But this isn’t just any ol’ parking garage. It’s a car!
*beep beep*
Built in 1986 by noted architect Stanley Tigerman, this 12-story parking garage was designed to look like an old car.
The façade of this postmodernist structure consists of turquoise baked enamel panels. What’s so special about these? Well, this particular color of turquoise was actually sourced from a 1957 Chevrolet color chart. Neat!
There are two awnings on either side that are painted to look like tires, and two arclights at the top to look like headlights!
There’s even a little figure on top of the structure to resemble a hood ornament.
When it was originally built, there was also a “SELFPARK” sign in the middle to look like a license plate, but that’s long gone.
Have you ever noticed this building in the Chicago Loop before? Let me know in the comments below! Tata! 🙂
I am so excited! I just started a new series on my YouTube channel where I combine my two favorite loves in this life: art history and mocktails! And what better artwork to start with than Van Gogh’s masterpiece, The Starry Night?!