I had a few artists on my list I was going to choose from but actually I've chosen Georgia Keefe off the top of my head this month.
The reasons being are that a) I just keep hearing her name these last few weeks b) she appears in many primary art lessons on the internet and c) I want to find out why as I thought she renowned for provocative and erotic art.
So she is a popular topic for many art lessons in the primary school as I discovered. She hasn't featured in mine yet, no real reason. Well, maybe because of c) above!
Yet I had in my mind that her art was thought to be erotic, provocative, representing genitalia…how can we introduce children with this in my mind!? I was completely wrong…and if these monthly artists bios, not matter how brief, are to serve any purpose, it’d be to educate me! And that’ll do…
But then I have just raved about James Rizzi to Year 4 last term and he was a pothead! BUT he was a wonderfully lovely, charitable, genuine man so external impressions of the art or the artist should not matter when teaching. It's all too easy to let prejudices, bias and social expectations override a good piece of art. Just be. Just enjoy it for what it is. Year 4 did and had some bloomin' good fun making bowls with James Rizzi style art on!
Lesson plans or activities I have found (mainly on my beloved Pinterest) would use a Georgia O'Keeffe painting as a stimulus for a 3D paper flower sculpture for instance..Others have had their class inspired by her to produce work in oil pastels or watercolours. I remember my son made one in Year 1 (he is year 2 now) which I have still to get framed.
| From www.vam.ac.uk: Georgia O'Keeffe, photography by Alfred Stieglitz, 1918, palladium print processed with mercury. Museum no. E.886-2003. Gift of the Georgia O'Keeffe Foundation, © The Georgia O'Keeffe Foundation |
She was part of the abstract movement; her bleached skulls are famous enough but she is mostly known for her captivating floral paintings, the ones that could conjure up erotic undertones for some. Her early work was something different altogether. She began her career with clear, concise paintings of cities and buildings. Then in the 1920s would move on to the flowing close-ups of flowers we know her more for. I have just got lost in the pictures I have found on Pinterest, they are stunning. It's easy to get lost in the fluidity of them, they are truly ethereal.
Through my research I did find a website highlighting a scientific study finding that fertile women found her paintings sexier at certain times of the month. I would never have even considered to think that! What a great study! Anyway, it’s been done. Here is the report at livescience.com.
Did she vocalise an intent for her art to look like vaginas? Did she, like Picasso, not actually say a word and just want the viewer to see what they wanted to and come to their own conclusion? According to my '50 Modern Artists you Should Know' book in which she features, she was much like Picasso in this respect;
"These greatly magnified, open calyxes of orchids, lilies , or calls often arouse erotic associations, though O'Keeffe dismissed this interpretation of them. Rather, she said her aim was to simplify shapes so as to bring out the true essence of things".
She brought almost a photographic quality to her painting, a macro detail perhaps. Which would maybe reflect the very new field of photo optics in the 1920s.
"When you take a flower in your hand and really look at it, it's your world for the moment. I want to give that world to someone else."
Another new and lovely discovery. Another inspiring artist.
Incidentally, I’m currently loving my biography on Frida Kahlo by Hayden Herrera , very well written.
No comments:
Post a Comment