DOCSLIB.ORG

Sharrissa Iqbal Dissertation to Submit June 2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sharrissa Iqbal Dissertation to Submit June 2021 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE Alternative Abstractions: Art and Science in Twentieth-Century Los Angeles DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Visual Studies by Sharrissa Iqbal Dissertation Committee: Professor Cécile Whiting, Chair Professor James D. Herbert Associate Professor James Nisbet 2021 © 2021 Sharrissa Iqbal Dedication It is a great honor to dedicate this dissertation to the memory of my incomparable older brother Arif Arshad Iqbal (1987-2007), whose compassion, love of studying philosophy and political science, and talent in photography will always inspire me to keep wondering, dreaming, and looking in new ways. To my magnificent parents Miriam and Dr. Arshad Iqbal- this is also for you, with all my admiration. ii Table of Contents Page List of Figures v Acknowledgements xi Curriculum Vitae xii Abstract xv Introduction: New Views of the Universe 1 Chapter Overviews Chapter One: Among the Planets: Helen Lundeberg’s Cosmic Imaginary 16 Introduction: Picturing Outer Space Part One: Post-Surrealism, Observation, and Physical Cosmology Part Two: Space Age Abstraction Conclusion: Ways of Knowing Chapter Two: 57 Unseen Worlds: Abstraction and Atomic Physics in Bettina Brendel’s Paintings Introduction: Space, Time, and Motion Energy in Motion: Approaching Theoretical Physics in Brendel’s Artwork Subatomic Forces: Particles or Waves? Complementary Descriptions: Double Views and Metaphors in Atomic Theory Painting Plasma: From Disorganization into Organized Complexity Conclusion: Laser Light and Future Technologies Chapter Three: 92 Beyond the Visible: Electromagnetic Radiation, Abstraction, and Quantum Theory in Mary Corse’s White Light Paintings Introduction: Rethinking Reality White Light in Painting and Physics Systemic Painting Expanding Boundaries: Electric Light and Physical Space in Painting Beyond the Visual: Quantum Theory and Metaphysics Retroreflective Paintings Conclusion: Veiled Reality Chapter Four: 133 Engineered Aesthetics: Forms of Energy in Frederick Eversley’s Parabolic Lens Sculptures Introduction: Hybrid Practice From Science and Technology into Art and Experience Looking at Lenses Observing Changes: Energy and Movement Conclusion: Ice Lenses, Rainbows, and Sublimation iii Conclusion: Alternative Approaches 172 Bibliography 179 iv List of Figures Figure I.1: Edwin Powell Hubble, H335H ("Hooker plate 335 by Hubble"), October 6, 1923, glass plate photograph, 4 x 5 inches, collection of Carnegie Observatories, Pasadena California. Figure 1.1: Helen Lundeberg, Self Portrait, 1944. Oil on masonite, 16 x 27 in. Collection of the Zimmerli Art Museum at Rutgers University. Figure 1.2: Helen Lundeberg, Cosmicide, 1935. Oil on masonite, 39 1/2 × 23 1/4 in. Sheldon Museum of Art, Nebraska Art Association. Figure 1.3: Lorser Feitelson, Maternity teaching diagram, early 1930s. Smithsonian Archives of American Art, Lorser Feitelson and Helen Lundeberg papers, circa 1890s-2002. Box 9 Folder 51: Composition Analysis, circa 1920s-1930s. Figure 1.4: Helen Lundeberg, Plant and Animal Analogies, 1934-1935. Oil on celotex, 24 x 30 in. The Buck Collection at The UCI Museum and Institute for California Art. Figure 1.5: Helen Lundeberg, The Red Planet, 1934. Oil on celotex, 24 x 30 in. Figure 1.6: “Donati’s Comet of 1858” Drawing by G. P. Bond, in John Charles Duncan, Astronomy: A Textbook, 1927. Figure 1.7: Helen Lundeberg, Relative Magnitude, 1936. Oil on celotex, 24 x 30 in. The Buck Collection at The UCI Museum and Institute for California Art. Figure 1.8: Helen Lundeberg, A Transit Instrument of the Early Nineteenth Century,” in Duncan, Astronomy: A Textbook, 1927. Figure 1.9: “The Field of View of a Transit Instrument or Meridian Circle,” in Duncan, Astronomy: A Textbook, 1927. Figure 1.10: “The Milky Way in Sagittarius,” in Duncan, Astronomy: A Textbook, 1927. Figure 1.11: Helen Lundeberg, Microcosm and Macrocosm, 1937. Oil on canvas, 38 ¼ x 13 ¾ inches, Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Figure 1.12: Protozoa diagrams, Gary N. Calkins, The Biology of the Protozoa, 1926. Figure 1.13. Helen Lundeberg, Amoeba proteus diagram, 1928. Lorser Feitelson and Helen Lundeberg papers, circa 1890s-2002. Box 9. Figure 1.14: “Saturn,” in Duncan, Astronomy: A Textbook, 1927. v Figure 1.15: Helen Lundeberg, The Wind that Blew the Sky Away, 1951. Oil on canvas, 36 x 56 in. Figure 1.16: Helen Lundeberg, The Veil, 1947. Oil on board, 9 x 12 in. Figure 1.17: Helen Lundeberg, The Studio, Moonlight, 1957. Acrylic on canvas, 24 x 20 in. Figure 1.18: Helen Lundeberg, Moon, Sea, Mist, 1955. Oil on canvas, 40 x 60 in. Figure 1.19: Helen Lundeberg, Moonscape, 1966. Acrylic on canvas, 10 x 16 inches. Laguna Art Museum. Figure 1.20: Helen Lundeberg, Among the Planets, 1961. Oil on canvas, 50 x 40 in. Figure 1.21: Helen Lundeberg, Planet Rising, 1964. Acrylic on canvas, 12 x 9 in. Figure 1.22: Helen Lundeberg, Planet, 1959-1964. Acrylic on board, 9 x 12 in. Figure 1.23 Helen Lundeberg, Untitled, 1959. Oil on canvas, 50 x 40 in. Figure 1.24: Helen Lundeberg, Untitled (Looking Through Series), 1964. Acrylic on canvas, 60 x 60 in. Figure 1.25: Helen Lundeberg, Untitled (Water Map), 1963. Acrylic on canvas, 60 x 60 in. Figure 1.26: Galileo Galilei, Moon drawings, 1609. Figure 1.27 Helen Lundeberg, Planet, 1965. Acrylic on canvas, 8 x 8 in. Figure 1.28: Helen Lundeberg, Among the Planets, 1965. Oil and enamel on canvas, 60 × 60 in. Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden. Figure 1.29: “From 65 Miles Up,” Life Magazine, 1946. Figure 1.30: “Mariner’s Prying Eye,” Life Magazine, December 14, 1962. Figure 1.31: “Venus Glows in Mariner Portrait” Life Magazine, March 22, 1963. Figure 1.32: Helen Lundeberg, Planet, No. 1, 1965. Oil on canvas. 60 x 60 in. Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Figure 1.33: Helen Lundeberg, (Untitled) Sectioned Planet, 1969. Acrylic on canvas. 36 x 36 in. Figure 1.34: Helen Lundeberg, Soft Planet, 1969. Acrylic on canvas. 36 x 36 in. Figure 1.35: Helen Lundeberg, Planet, 1967. Acrylic on canvas. 12 x 12 in. vi Figure 1.36: Earth’s core diagram, Life Magazine, November 28, 1960. Figure 2.1: Bettina Brendel, Resonance, 1978. Acrylic on canvas, 40 x 60 in. Figure 2.2: Bettina Brendel, Density 1, 1960. Oil on canvas, 60 x 96 in. Figure 2.3: Bettina Brendel, Gravitation, 1961. Oil on canvas, 48 x 108 in. Figure 2.4: Electromagnetic spectrum diagram from The Universe and Dr. Einstein, Lincoln Barnett, 1948. Figure 2.5: Bettina Brendel, Science Symbols, 1965. Oil and collage on canvas, 50 x 90 in. Figure 2.6: Bettina Brendel, Positive, Negative, 1966. Collage on canvas, 60 x 84 in. Figure 2.7: Bettina Brendel, Magnetic Field, 1967. Acrylic paint and wood on canvas, 80 x 50 in. Figure 2.8: “The field of a bar magnet,” diagram in The Universe and Dr. Einstein, Lincoln Barnett, 1948. Figure 2.9: Bettina Brendel, From Circle to Line: Optical Distortions, pencil drawing, 1987. Reproduced in “Atomic Length- A Basic Unit in Physics- As a Visual Metaphor in Art,” Leonardo, 1988. Figure 2.10: Bettina Brendel, Particles or Waves?, 1969. Acrylic on canvas, six parts, 90 in x 26 ft. Figure 2.11: Bettina Brendel, Laser, acrylic on canvas, 1969. Reproduced in “The Painter and the New Physics,” Art Journal, 1971, page 44. Figure 2.12: Feynman diagram reproduced in Frieda A. Stahl, “Physics as Metaphor and Vice Versa,” Leonardo, 1987, page 59. Figure 2.13: Bettina Brendel, Diffraction, 1970. Diptych, acrylic on canvas, 80 in x 100 in. Figure 2.14: Bettina Brendel, illustrations of photon distribution, electron diffraction, and Diffraction 1970. Reproduced in “The Painter and the New Physics,” Art Journal, 1971, page 43. Figure 2.15: Bettina Brendel, Plasma, 1969. Diptych, acrylic on canvas, 80 in x 100 in. Figure 2.16: Bettina Brendel, Ionization, 1972. Diptych, acrylic on canvas, 90 in x 100 in. Figure 2.17: Bettina Brendel, Ionization, 1970. Triptych, acrylic on canvas, 7.5 ft x 12.5 ft. Figure 2.18: Bettina Brendel, Metal Vapor Lasers and Phantom Phase, 1982. Diptych, acrylic on canvas, 78 x 100 in. vii Figure 3.1: Mary Corse, Untitled (Space + Electric Light), 1968. Argon, Plexiglas, high-frequency generator, light tubes, monofilament. Figure 3.2: Mary Corse, Untitled (Red/Blue), 1964. Acrylic on canvas. Figure 3.3: Mary Corse, Untitled (Octagonal Blue), 1964. Figure 3.4: Mary Corse, Untitled (Octagonal White), 1964. Figure 3.5: Mary Corse, Untitled (Positive Stripe), 1965. Figure 3.6: Mary Corse, Untitled (Negative Stripe), 1965. Figure 3.7: Mary Corse, three works, each called Untitled (Space Plexi + Painted Wood), 1966. Figure 3.8: Systemic Painting, catalogue cover, Guggenheim Museum,1966. Figure 3.9: Mary Corse, Untitled (White Light Series), 1966. Fluorescent light, plexiglass, and acrylic on wood. Figure 3.10: Mary Corse, Untitled, 1967. Fluorescent light, plexiglass. Figure 3.11: Mary Corse in her downtown Los Angeles studio, circa 1967. Figure 3.12: Mary Corse, Untitled (Electric Light), 1968/2019. Argon, plexiglass, and high frequency generator. Figure 3.13: Mary Corse, Untitled (Space + Electric Light), 1968. Argon, plexiglass, and high frequency generator. Figure 3.14: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Glass Bead Retroreflection diagram. Figure 3.15: Mary Corse, Untitled (First White Light Series), 1968. Glass microspheres in acrylic on canvas. 78 x 78 in. Figure 3.16: Figure 16. Corse, Untitled (White Grid, Horizontal Strokes), 1969. Glass microspheres in acrylic on canvas. 108 x 108 in. Figure 3.17: Mary Corse, Untitled (White Grid, Vertical Strokes), 1969. Glass microspheres in acrylic on canvas. 108 x 108 in. Figure 3.18: Mary Corse, Untitled (Light Painting, Grid), 1969. Glass microspheres in acrylic on canvas. 108 x 108 in. Figure 3.19: Mary Corse, Untitled, 1969. Glass microspheres in acrylic on canvas.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Philosophy of Science -----Paulk
    PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE -----PAULK. FEYERABEND----- However, it has also a quite decisive role in building the new science and in defending new theories against their well-entrenched predecessors. For example, this philosophy plays a most important part in the arguments about the Copernican system, in the development of optics, and in the Philosophy ofScience: A Subject with construction of a new and non-Aristotelian dynamics. Almost every work of Galileo is a mixture of philosophical, mathematical, and physical prin~ a Great Past ciples which collaborate intimately without giving the impression of in­ coherence. This is the heroic time of the scientific philosophy. The new philosophy is not content just to mirror a science that develops independ­ ently of it; nor is it so distant as to deal just with alternative philosophies. It plays an essential role in building up the new science that was to replace 1. While it should be possible, in a free society, to introduce, to ex­ the earlier doctrines.1 pound, to make propaganda for any subject, however absurd and however 3. Now it is interesting to see how this active and critical philosophy is immoral, to publish books and articles, to give lectures on any topic, it gradually replaced by a more conservative creed, how the new creed gener­ must also be possible to examine what is being expounded by reference, ates technical problems of its own which are in no way related to specific not to the internal standards of the subject (which may be but the method scientific problems (Hurne), and how there arises a special subject that according to which a particular madness is being pursued), but to stan­ codifies science without acting back on it (Kant).
    [Show full text]
  • A Finding Aid to the Lorser Feitelson and Helen Lundeberg Papers, Circa 1890S-2002, in the Archives of American Art
    A Finding Aid to the Lorser Feitelson and Helen Lundeberg Papers, circa 1890s-2002, in the Archives of American Art Michael Yates and Jayna Josefson Funding for the processing of this collection was provided by the Getty Foundation; funding for the digitization of the collection was provided by the Terra Foundation for American Art. September 12, 2007 Archives of American Art 750 9th Street, NW Victor Building, Suite 2200 Washington, D.C. 20001 https://www.aaa.si.edu/services/questions https://www.aaa.si.edu/ Table of Contents Collection Overview ........................................................................................................ 1 Administrative Information .............................................................................................. 1 Biographical Note............................................................................................................. 2 Scope and Content Note................................................................................................. 3 Arrangement..................................................................................................................... 4 Names and Subjects ...................................................................................................... 4 Container Listing ............................................................................................................. 6 Series 1: Biographical Materials, 1922-1995........................................................... 6 Series 2: Correspondence, 1932-1998...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Faculty Handbook
    FACULTY HANDBOOK 2021-22 Mission Statement Throughout its history, Pomona College has educated students of exceptional promise. We gather individuals, regardless of financial circumstances, into a small residential community that is strongly rooted in Southern California yet global in its orientation. Through close ties among a diverse group of faculty, staff and classmates, Pomona students are inspired to engage in the probing inquiry and creative learning that enable them to identify and address their intellectual passions. This experience will continue to guide their contributions as the next generation of leaders, scholars, artists, and engaged members of society to fulfill the vision of the College’s founders: to bear their added riches in trust for all. ii The information in this handbook is correct at the date of publication. However, Pomona College reserves the right to alter its regulations, schedules, etc., should conditions warrant such changes. iii Table of Contents FACULTY HANDBOOK ............................................................................................................. 1 Mission Statement .........................................................................................................................ii Introduction ..................................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER I: ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION OF THE COLLEGE ......................................................3 SECTION A: THE BYLAWS OF POMONA COLLEGE................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Helen Pashgianhelen Helen Pashgian L Acm a Delmonico • Prestel
    HELEN HELEN PASHGIAN ELIEL HELEN PASHGIAN LACMA DELMONICO • PRESTEL HELEN CAROL S. ELIEL PASHGIAN 9 This exhibition was organized by the Published in conjunction with the exhibition Helen Pashgian: Light Invisible Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Funding at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles, California is provided by the Director’s Circle, with additional support from Suzanne Deal Booth (March 30–June 29, 2014). and David G. Booth. EXHIBITION ITINERARY Published by the Los Angeles County All rights reserved. No part of this book may Museum of Art be reproduced or transmitted in any form Los Angeles County Museum of Art 5905 Wilshire Boulevard or by any means, electronic or mechanical, March 30–June 29, 2014 Los Angeles, California 90036 including photocopy, recording, or any other (323) 857-6000 information storage and retrieval system, Frist Center for the Visual Arts, Nashville www.lacma.org or otherwise without written permission from September 26, 2014–January 4, 2015 the publishers. Head of Publications: Lisa Gabrielle Mark Editor: Jennifer MacNair Stitt ISBN 978-3-7913-5385-2 Rights and Reproductions: Dawson Weber Creative Director: Lorraine Wild Designer: Xiaoqing Wang FRONT COVER, BACK COVER, Proofreader: Jane Hyun PAGES 3–6, 10, AND 11 Untitled, 2012–13, details and installation view Formed acrylic 1 Color Separator, Printer, and Binder: 12 parts, each approx. 96 17 ⁄2 20 inches PR1MARY COLOR In Helen Pashgian: Light Invisible, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 2014 This book is typeset in Locator. PAGE 9 Helen Pashgian at work, Pasadena, 1970 Copyright ¦ 2014 Los Angeles County Museum of Art Printed and bound in Los Angeles, California Published in 2014 by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art In association with DelMonico Books • Prestel Prestel, a member of Verlagsgruppe Random House GmbH Prestel Verlag Neumarkter Strasse 28 81673 Munich Germany Tel.: +49 (0)89 41 36 0 Fax: +49 (0)89 41 36 23 35 Prestel Publishing Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • The Experimental Verdict on Spacetime from Gravity Probe B
    The Experimental Verdict on Spacetime from Gravity Probe B James Overduin Abstract Concepts of space and time have been closely connected with matter since the time of the ancient Greeks. The history of these ideas is briefly reviewed, focusing on the debate between “absolute” and “relational” views of space and time and their influence on Einstein’s theory of general relativity, as formulated in the language of four-dimensional spacetime by Minkowski in 1908. After a brief detour through Minkowski’s modern-day legacy in higher dimensions, an overview is given of the current experimental status of general relativity. Gravity Probe B is the first test of this theory to focus on spin, and the first to produce direct and unambiguous detections of the geodetic effect (warped spacetime tugs on a spin- ning gyroscope) and the frame-dragging effect (the spinning earth pulls spacetime around with it). These effects have important implications for astrophysics, cosmol- ogy and the origin of inertia. Philosophically, they might also be viewed as tests of the propositions that spacetime acts on matter (geodetic effect) and that matter acts back on spacetime (frame-dragging effect). 1 Space and Time Before Minkowski The Stoic philosopher Zeno of Elea, author of Zeno’s paradoxes (c. 490-430 BCE), is said to have held that space and time were unreal since they could neither act nor be acted upon by matter [1]. This is perhaps the earliest version of the relational view of space and time, a view whose philosophical fortunes have waxed and waned with the centuries, but which has exercised enormous influence on physics.
    [Show full text]
  • Classical Spacetime Structure
    Classical Spacetime Structure James Owen Weatherall Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science University of California, Irvine Abstract I discuss several issues related to \classical" spacetime structure. I review Galilean, Newto- nian, and Leibnizian spacetimes, and briefly describe more recent developments. The target audience is undergraduates and early graduate students in philosophy; the presentation avoids mathematical formalism as much as possible. 1. Introduction One often associates spacetime|a four-dimensional geometrical structure representing both space and time|with relativity theory, developed by Einstein and others in the early part of the twentieth century.1 But soon after relativity theory appeared, several authors, such as Hermann Weyl (1952 [1918]), Elie´ Cartan (1923, 1924), and Kurt Friedrichs (1927), began to study how the spatio-temporal structure presupposed by classical, i.e., Newtonian, physics could be re-cast using the methods of four-dimensional geometry developed in the context of relativity. These reformulations of classical physics were initially of interest for the insight they offered into the structure of relativity theory.2 But this changed in 1967, when Howard Stein proposed that the notion of a \classical" spacetime could provide important insight arXiv:1707.05887v1 [physics.hist-ph] 18 Jul 2017 Email address: [email protected] (James Owen Weatherall) 1The idea of \spacetime" was actually introduced by Minkowski (2013 [1911]), several years after Einstein first introduced relativity theory. 2And indeed, they remain of interest for this reason: see, for instance, Friedman (1983), Malament (1986a,b, 2012), Earman (1989b), Fletcher (2014), Barrett (2015), Weatherall (2011a,b, 2014, 2017d,c), and Dewar and Weatherall (2017) for philosophical discussions of the relationship between relativity theory and Newtonian physics that make heavy use of this formalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Spacetime Is Probably a Substance Author(S): Tim Maudlin Reviewed Work(S): Source: Philosophy of Science, Vol
    Buckets of Water and Waves of Space: Why Spacetime Is Probably a Substance Author(s): Tim Maudlin Reviewed work(s): Source: Philosophy of Science, Vol. 60, No. 2 (Jun., 1993), pp. 183-203 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/188350 . Accessed: 28/12/2012 20:13 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The University of Chicago Press and Philosophy of Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy of Science. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded on Fri, 28 Dec 2012 20:13:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Philosophy of Science June, 1993 BUCKETS OF WATER AND WAVES OF SPACE: WHY SPACETIME IS PROBABLY A SUBSTANCE* TIM MAUDLINtt Department of Philosophy Rutgers University This paper sketches a taxonomy of forms of substantivalism and relationism concerning space and time, and of the traditional arguments for these positions. Several natural sorts of relationism are able to account for Newton's bucket experiment. Conversely, appropriately constructed substantivalism can survive Leibniz's critique, a fact which has been obscured by the conflation of two of Leibniz's arguments.
    [Show full text]
  • Helen Lundeberg: Classic Attitude November 3Rd – December 17Th, 2016 Opening Reception: Thursday, November 3Rd, 6:00 to 8:00 Pm
    Helen Lundeberg: Classic Attitude November 3rd – December 17th, 2016 Opening reception: Thursday, November 3rd, 6:00 to 8:00 pm Cristin Tierney Gallery is pleased to present Classic Attitude, an exhibition of hard- edged abstract paintings from the early 1960s by Helen Lundeberg. Classic Attitude opens on Thursday, November 3rd with a reception from 6:00 to 8:00 pm. This is the gallery’s first exhibition of Lundeberg’s work. Helen Lundeberg was a leading figure of west coast abstraction in the post-war era. An active painter and writer, she was at the epicenter of a dynamic group of Los Angeles artists and critics that included Lorser Feitelson, Karl Benjamin, Jules Langsner, John McLaughlin, and Frederick Hammersley. Along with her peers, Lundeberg’s work formed the core of what later became known as California hard- edged painting. Although her contributions to American abstraction have long been recognized on the west coast, Lundeberg has yet to receive her due in the east. In the 1960s Lundeberg created a body of work considered to be her finest and most distinct. Distilled to essential elements of line, color, and space, her hard-edged paintings from this period effect a coherence of composition that borders on the sublime. Classic Attitude presents a selection of paintings from this moment, featuring works that are united by their compositional balance, subtleties of color, and pictorial refinement. The title of the exhibition derives from a statement Lundeberg wrote for a 1942 exhibition at MoMA: By classicism I mean, not traditionalism of any sort, but a highly conscious concern with esthetic structure which is the antithesis of intuitive, romantic, or realistic approaches to painting.
    [Show full text]
  • The Body, the Brain and Modern Art
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Sheldon Museum of Art Catalogues and Publications Sheldon Museum of Art 2001 Making Sense of the Senses: The Body, the Brain and Modern Art Will South Curator of Collections, Weatherspoon Art Museum, University of North Carolina at Greensboro Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/sheldonpubs Part of the Art and Design Commons South, Will, "Making Sense of the Senses: The Body, the Brain and Modern Art" (2001). Sheldon Museum of Art Catalogues and Publications. 43. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/sheldonpubs/43 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Sheldon Museum of Art at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sheldon Museum of Art Catalogues and Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Making Sense of the Senses: The BoCiYL the Brain and Modern Art The barking of dogs Is deepening the yellow Of the sunflowers. -Richard Wright (1908-1960)1 magine, as so many artists, musicians, writers, as none of us actually ever sees a collapsed lung. I poets and dreamers have tried to do so many Yet, all of us, including the most reasonable among times in so many ways, a universal Ian - us, use metaphor constantly. guage-one that could be understood by anyone And, apparently for good, unavoidable and in any place at any time. However implausible such wholly natural reasons. What both contemporary a language may seem, however romantic, naIve, or linguists and cognitive neuroscientists are now flatly impossible, its creation in visual terms was a telling us about the brain is that metaphors are not common pursuit of early modern painters, those dispensable decorations.
    [Show full text]
  • Vija Celmins in California 1962-1981
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works School of Arts & Sciences Theses Hunter College Winter 1-3-2020 Somewhere between Distance and Intimacy: Vija Celmins in California 1962-1981 Jessie Lebowitz CUNY Hunter College How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/hc_sas_etds/546 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] Somewhere between Distance and Intimacy: Vija Celmins in California 1962-1981 by Jessie Lebowitz Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Art History, Hunter College The City University of New York 2019 December 19, 2019 Howard Singerman Date Thesis Sponsor December 19, 2019 Harper Montgomery Date Signature of Second Reader Table of Contents List of Illustrations ii Introduction 1 Chapter 1: The Southern California Renaissance 8 Chapter 2: 1970s Pluralism on the West Coast 29 Chapter 3: The Modern Landscape - Distant Voids, Intimate Details 47 Conclusion 61 Bibliography 64 Illustrations 68 i List of Illustrations All works are by Vija Celmins unless otherwise indicated Figure 1: Time Magazine Cover, 1965. Oil on canvas, Private collection, Switzerland. ​ ​ Figure 2: Ed Ruscha, Large Trademark with Eight Spotlights, 1962. Oil, house paint, ink, and ​ ​ graphite pencil on canvas, Whitney Museum of American Art, New York. Figure 3: Heater, 1964. Oil on canvas, Whitney Museum of American Art, New York. ​ ​ Figure 4: Giorgio Morandi, Still Life, 1949. Oil on canvas, Museum of Modern Art, New York.
    [Show full text]
  • Mural Decorations - Completed and in Progress - by Federal Art Project in Northern Southern California April 1, 1937
    Mural Decorations - Completed and in Progress - by Federal Art Project in Northern Southern California April 1, 1937 Area Institution Location City Name Medium Status S John C. Fremont School Anaheim Arthur Ames 2 panels oil on gesso Completed S Beaumont District Library Beaumont Henri De Kruif 2 panels oil on canvas Completed N Belvedere Public Library Selden G. Gile 3 x 12 ft decorative panel, oil Completed Belvedere 8 x 22 ft carved redwood N California School for the Blind Berkeley Sargent Johnson Completed panel low relief University of California - N UC Art Gallery, East Façade Berkeley Florence Swift tile mosaic Completed Berkeley University of California - N UC Art Gallery Berkeley Florence Swift glazed tile decorations In Progress Berkeley University of California - N UC Art Gallery, East Façade Berkeley Helen Bruton tile mosaic Completed Berkeley University of California - N UC Art Gallery Berkeley Helen Bruton glazed tile decorations In Progress Berkeley S Beverly Hills High School Music Room Beverly Hills P.G. Napolitano fresco panel In Progress N Sunset Grammar School Carmel Armin Hansen oil on canvas mural Completed Los Angeles Tubercular Phillip Goldstein and Reuben S Library Duarte fresco panel Completed Sanatorium Kadish S East Whittier Primary School Cafeteria East Whittier Caspar Duchow glazed tile mosaic Completed S El Monte Public Library El Monte R.W.R. Taylor 11 panels fresco on celotex In Progress S Mountain View School Wall Fountains El Monte Bessie Heller 2 panels glazed tile mosaic In Progress Frank H. Bowers and Arthur S Ruth School El Monte 2000 sq ft fresco In Progress W.
    [Show full text]
  • Helen Lundeberg (1908-1999)
    HELEN LUNDEBERG (1908-1999) SELECTED CHRONOLOGY 1908 Born Chicago, June 24th 1912 Moves with her family to Pasadena CA 1921 Enters Pasadena High School Enrolled in Stanford University “Gifted Children Study” 1927 Attends Pasadena Junior College 1930-33 Stickney Memorial School of Art, Pasadena. Teacher:Lorser Feitelson. 1931 Moves to Los Angeles; joins Federal Public Works Art Project(PWAP) Formulates Post-Surrealism/Subjective Classicism with Lorser Feitelson 1933 Begins attempting to reconcile subjective, introspective material with the logical and rational conscious mind in her artwork 1933-41 Becomes easel painter and muralist for the southern California Federal Art Project 1934 Writes manifesto 'New Classicism' (Post-Surrealism) Association of Post-Surrealist Artists formed: Lorser Feitelson, Lundeberg, Lucian Labaudt, Ben Berlin, Knud Merrild, Grace Clements, Philip Guston and Reuben Kadish. 1936 Paints two murals at Los Angeles County Hall of Records for WPA/FAP 1937 For the FAP, assists Feitelson on murals for Thomas A. Edison High School, L.A. Four lithographs at FAP/WPA Print Division: Enigma, The Planets, Arabesque and Ruins. 1938-1942 Designs and paints murals for WAP/FAP at Los Angeles Patriotic Hall, Venice High School, Gge Washington School, Fullerton Civic Center, and petrachrome mural walls at Canoga Park High School, “History of Transportation” in Centinela Park, Inglewood, CA 1940s Works in Post-surrealist explorations 1946 New York to visit Dorothy Miller and Holger Cahill; invited to a party by Peggy Guggenheim. 1948 Creates Moonrise at Lynton Kistler's Lithography Studio Workshop. 1950s Work shifted toward “mindscapes” 1950 $1000 First Purchase Award 1957 $400 prize for Selma. 1987 Helen Lundeberg-American Painter Video: 56 minutes, Atmosphere Productions 1990 Honorary Doctorate Degree: Otis-Parsons College of Art, Los Angeles Receives grant from the Richard A.
    [Show full text]