- Style was also one of the artistic elements that changed through Canadian history. In the earlier rooms, the main style that dominated the rooms was of realism. Rooms 102, 104 and 105 all comprised of paintings with very realistic style. The pieces of art depicted scenes which were shown as if it were real life. Nothing in the first few rooms showed that artists showed their own expressionistic views or showing anything out of the ordinary. This was most probably because the artists wanted to show the realistic view of the hard work the aboriginals and the early settlers had to go through to emphasize the life they went through in the early days of Canada. Room 106 showed the start of a new type of style; artists were more towards the impressionistic and expressionistic side of art. These paintings contained more of what the artists were trying to illustrate through impressions of the real world. Art began to consist more of distortions rather than the completely real view of society. This shows that different thoughts were beginning to erupt later in the history of Canada. The next few rooms included styles of boldness and impressionism. The paintings began to show more boldness through the artists’ various concepts of outlining the structures of society. The paintings of the following room really began to transpire into the unrealism of society, by showing bold and solid colours with little texture and more smoothness. The paintings started to drift away from the regular, realistic side of art with rather altered forms of images expressed by the artists of the time. The style of room 110 really stood out to me. The works of art of that room gave a feeling of uncertainty and sadness, with forms of abstractness and impressionistic behaviour. Paintings in this room had no simple and clear meaning; there was a confusing tone to this room with paintings that had techniques like none other in the previous rooms of Canadian art. Going further away from the early days and more into the modern days, art began to appear more abstract than before. It seemed as if the realistic views of society had been disappearing and more abstract views came onto the canvas from the artists’ minds. People were changing the way art was to be viewed; more interest seemed to start in the emotional side of art, given by the abstract and the surrealistic styles.
- Throughout the rooms of the Canadian art section, the colours seemed to get bolder and more vibrant. In the first few rooms, the colours were dark and each colour was standing out. There was good contrast between the dark and the brighter colours. When necessary, the paintings had earthly tones to emphasize the environment the paintings depicted. Room 105 used colours that deeply contributed to the realistic style it had. The colours used for skin were really standing out, showing the natural side of humans. These light colours showed the people’s expressions in the paintings to a good effect, contributing to the room’s subject. The natural colours of this room changed in the next room to become more vibrant and bright to contribute to the paintings’ impressionistic style. From room 107, I noticed the use of solid colours to appear, being bolder and giving emphasis on the outline rather than the finer details. Contrast between light and dark colours continued to play a role in most of the final rooms, however these were again bolder than the paintings I observed in the previous rooms.
- The materials that dominated the paintings in most of the rooms were oil on canvas. This seemed to be the most used medium throughout the history of Canadian art. In the first few rooms, oil on canvas was found to be the material used for the majority of the paintings. It seemed as if the oil on canvas paintings showed detail and sharpness of the landscapes and the portraits. This was a good contributing factor to the realism of these rooms. Room 106 was where I noticed a new material called oil and burlap. Later through the years, artists had a greater link to different resources whereas earlier they were limited to what they could use. However, oil on canvas still remained to be the most popular method of painting. Room 111 consisted of some acrylic work. This was used more in the modern times, which was probably more expensive, which is why only some artists could afford to use it for their paintings. The use of acrylic on some of the paintings gave a more abstract and modern feel to the room, rather than the regular oil on canvas form. The final room, room 112, consisted of a much wider variety of materials. This was most probably when people had the largest availability of new materials to paint with such as oil on masonite, enamel paint, Lucite on canvas, and blackboard paint. All of these materials were never used before which shows that the art in the Canadian history changed with the usage of newer materials, which were not available back then.
- The brushstrokes were very much blended in the first room. The artists used thick strokes to possible emphasize the landscapes and portraits by making them more visible rather than focusing on smaller details. I observed that the brushstrokes for the next rooms remained quite similar. They were still bold, rugged and visible. However, some paintings also had smaller strokes for finer details in room 105. When the impressionistic and expressionistic styles appeared in paintings starting from room 106, the brushstrokes became even thicker and bolder. They were blotchy, rough and short, to show minor detail, but giving an overall picture. The further I went into the sections the brushstrokes were really exaggerated by the artists with little shading. This contributed to the use of solid and vibrant colours. In room 108, where the Group of Seven artists’ paintings were present, the brushstrokes seemed to soften and become blended again to emphasize the detail in nature. When the abstract types of paintings were being seen in the later rooms, the strokes became more visible again and paint was used excessively. Some were smooth while others had rugged strokes. By the end of the section, many types of brushstrokes were used, all depending on the type of the art.
- The sizes of the paintings varied quite a bit while going through the rooms. However, I noticed a trend in the sizes of the paintings from room 102 to 112. In the earlier rooms, the size was varied usually ranging from smaller to medium sized paintings. Later on, I found that the paintings gradually got bigger in size, showing larger details rather than fine details in the painting. The last two rooms barely had any small sized paintings; mostly all of them were much larger than seen before and they contained much more paint and thicker brushstrokes. I noticed that the larger paintings in the rooms were either abstract or portraits. Portraits were large to show emphasis on the people being painted and to show their power, while the abstract ones were large to show a greater visual of the artist’s meaning in an unrealistic way.
Finding Meaning in Art
- Art asks us to find our own meaning at times. Find any painting in the Gallery A111.
- How is the artist trying to convey meaning?
The painting that appealed to me the most in section A111 is called “3+4+1”, by Paul-Emile Borduas. This painting is meant to create a reversible effect on the audience. The artist is trying to convey meaning this way, by allowing us to view the painting in two different perspectives. It can be either seen as a white screen with various openings that reveal blackness or bunches of one, three, and four black shapes (as titled) resting on the white surface.
- What is your interpretation of that piece?
To me, it is an exceptional example of abstract art. Not only this, the artist has given the audience more depth in the art piece by showing us that art, and other things can easily be looked at in more one outlook. This leads into how different people view things in contrast to how others see things. It allows one to think that each person is unique and they each have their own ways of seeing things. This painting accurately represents this viewpoint by showing two very distinct ways of interpreting the piece of art.
Nature, Mathematics, and Art
- After you are through gallery A114, go into the garden. There is a metal piece of art which looks like DNA. You are allowed to play with this if you choose. Look at the plants more closely.
- Is nature itself art? If so, does that mean everything is art?
Yes, nature itself is, in a way, art. Because nature is all around humans on Earth, it is enough to say that everything is art. Depends on how one looks at things, anything can be classified as ‘art’ to them. One person who may believe that a certain object is art, the other may want to disagree. Whether something is appealing to a person or if it provides a further figurative meaning, anything can be called art. As long as one who believes that something is art, it can be it. In other words, if one wants something to be art, they can allow it to be art.
- Pictures of ferns have been created by artists using mathematical patterns from chaos theory called fractals. Do you think computers can create REAL art on their own, or are people required to create art?
Computers cannot create real ‘art’ on their own. I do not think computers have the ability to realize what read art is as they do not have the human brain, the most creative object on earth. Art can only be created by people. They are the ones who input the creativity needed for their own piece of artwork. Not only is creativity needed, but so is the emotional side. Each piece of art that has been created would typically have a certain meaning to it, usually intended by the artist itself. Art created by humans is not simply a mixture of colours or materials on a canvas; it is much more than that. The deeper meaning comes from the person’s perspective and he or she can craft it the way they want it for their audience. Despite this, computers can easily create objects and pieces of so called ‘art’ using advanced technology to make the painting/drawing look flawless. However, if real art has two components, the physical aspect and the expressive aspect, then computers that generate art fail to include the expressive aspect as they do not generate the connection art has with people’s minds. As cliché as it may appear to be, art requires the motivation and the imagination of an artist. The artist then creates these largely for their beauty along with possible emotional messages, something which a computer cannot do.
Architecture
- Next to the fern garden is the now reconstructed Rideau Street Convent Chapel. Sit in it for a moment to rest.
- Do you think this chapel has a rightful place in an art gallery? Why or why not?
I believe that the Rideau Street Convent Chapel has a rightful place in the gallery. It portrays a decent artistic view as a form of architecture. This structure was most probably intended to be a part of the National Gallery of Canada for its artistic merit from a structural point of view. The inner architecture of the Chapel can be judged as a piece of art. After sitting inside the Chapel for a few minutes, it became clear that this structure embodies not just the architectural significance, but also the historical significance of Canada. The Chapel’s elegant architecture is home to a few sculptures and altars, which are also seen as art.
- What qualities do you think buildings need to be called good architecture?
There are a few qualities that buildings should have to be known as ‘good architecture’. Firstly, I believe that they should be appealing to the public that passes by the building. Being alluring can be different for different types of buildings. For example, if it were a shopping mall, it should be modern and more stylistic than a library would need to be. The architecture should be based on the type of building and the type of public it needs to attract. Moreover, the design of the building is important. If designed appropriately with its surroundings before building the structure, the architecture of the building should not fail. To me, as long as the building encompasses, in its architecture, the required characteristics of its purpose as a building, then it can be called good architecture.
- Excluding Parliament Hill, Chateau Laurier, Supreme Court of Canada, the National Gallery of Canada, museums, or any other government building – Name one building in Ottawa you consider art and one building you think is not art. Explain.
There are many buildings in Ottawa that can be considered good art, in the form of architecture. One building in particular that stands out to me is Lisgar Collegiate Institute. It is Ottawa’s oldest high school, and it is home to one of Ottawa finest old architecture. The building itself is art because it has lasted through the country’s history from the late 1800’s. It has gone through many important events such as both the World Wars and many notable discoveries. It is an impressive building that fits in appropriately with its surroundings near the Rideau canal and the Parliament hill.
Tower C of Place de Ville, I believe, is not an artistic building. Despite it being the tallest building in Ottawa, I do not think it can be considered art as it serves no other main purpose than being an office building. It is mainly composed of typical office glass windows, with no other attracting features. The architecture of the building is simple, and it is made only for office space. The building’s typical features and tall look of plainness provokes me to call it ‘bad art’.
Art and Society
- Visit the Indigenous Art Collection on the Ground Floor.
- Why do you think this collection is separate from the “Canadian Art” collection?
The Indigenous Art collection is separated from the Canadian Art collection because of its spiritual expression given in the forms of cultural diversity and connections with the Indigenous people of Canada. The collection of artwork in this section of the gallery illustrates a broad visual of the aboriginal life with nature. As I walked by the various pieces, it became apparent that the Indigenous peoples of Canada had a much deeper, spiritual relationship with nature. These pieces of art are not only those of the Indigenous, they are of the first perspectives of the land. These people viewed life quite different from what the European settlers had. This is why I believe that this collection is not a part of the Canadian collection, which is much more advanced and society related than the Indigenous section.
- Art often gives us information about society. Using any two pieces of Indigenous art, what social commentary do you think the artist may be trying to suggest? Make sure you name the works of art in your answer.
The first piece of Indigenous art that portrays a social commentary of the society is by Manasie Akpaliapik who created the piece with no name in 1991. The piece is made out of whale bone, shell and ivory. It is a sculpture of a deformed man head with a bottle in his head. He appears to be drunk, shown by the bottle. The bottle of alcohol being in his head can be interpreted as him being controlled by the bottle; he is pretty much depressed at his possible alcohol addiction. This piece of art may be a representative of what problems with alcohol the society may have had. The artist is trying to suggest that the man is not the only one having these serious alcohol issues; many of the Inuit in the North today also have these problems.
The second piece of Indigenous art that I believe the artist suggests about the society is called “Singing and Drumming Sounds from the Shaman” by Mattius Iyaituk, created in 2000. It is an interesting piece composed of limestone, caribou antlers and musk-ox. The piece is an exceptional interpretation Inuit Shamanism, using natural materials to create this abstract piece of art. It seems as if the piece is of one playing a drum and singing songs. The antlers at the sides are used to portray a drum being played. The second antler, placed at the mouth of the shaman, conveys the chanting of the songs. This illustration of the shaman with music being played and sung shows the society’s musical and spiritual side. The shaman was most probably singing Inuit songs in his society while playing the drums. This piece makes it easy to imagine the soft chanting of the shaman alongside the noise of the drums. This representation shows the people today what it was like being part of the shaman group of people.
- All art – whether it be visual, music, literature, film etc. – is affected by the specific climate in which it is produced (time, place, social convention, etc.) and is often created in reaction to “movements” or styles that came before it. How important is it to know these sorts of historical details to appreciate a work of art?
It is very important to know historic details to appreciate any work of art. By knowing the any of the specifics of the art piece such as the time it was made and the place it was made in can help one gain a much better understand of the artwork. Not only this, but it also makes it more significant for the person viewing the art as they can relate to it with more depth by knowing some background information of the piece of art. Historic details, for example in the case of the Indigenous collection made it much more interesting and more connections were made only from knowing when and where the art was produced, along with the social conventions of the art. Looking at the art more closely, one can clearly relate back to the historical details they know beforehand, making the viewing of the art a more in depth experience.
What is ‘Good’ Art?
- As you wander through the contemporary galleries on the first or second floor, select a work of art that leaves you puzzled at best. Write down the title and the artist. Research the piece at the library or on the internet, or speak to an art expert to understand the artist and the intended message.
The piece of art work which puzzles me at best is called, “Lever”, by Carl Andre, made in 1966. This piece of art is made up of only 137 firebricks.
- Does this new information change your appreciation for the piece? Explain by referring specifically to the artist’s intention and the specific work.
I had appreciated the piece of art the first time I had seen it because of its unorthodox and simplistic style. The artwork to me seemed quite appropriate in the contemporary section because of its modern technique. There were many puzzling pieces; however, this one seemed to me the most perplexing, because of the material used and the way it has been placed in the room. The 137 firebricks placed on the edge of the wall on the floor in a single line is a piece that is truly bewildering to me, and for the same reason, alluring. After researching more on the piece and the artist, I found that the artist’s style of work is mainly composed of such styles. In fact, he was one of the founders of the art movement of Minimal, Systemic, or ABC art. It is basically an art that seeks to eliminate all extra details and decorative components to art. Its goal is to show art in its purest, most minimal form, hence called minimalistic art. He works with only commercially available materials such as cement, bricks, or timber. Andre’s main intention with this piece of work is to illustrate how art can also be ‘art’ without the many unnecessary details. He shows his form by using only raw materials without the need of painting it or carving it; he simply placed the bricks in an orderly fashion.
- In your contemporary wanderings, choose two pieces of work you consider to be ‘good’ and two you consider bad art. Identify the pieces and state the criteria you consider to be important in making ‘good’ contemporary art.
The first piece of contemporary art that I came across that can be called ‘good’ contemporary art is called “Painting for the American Negro” by James Rosenquist, made in 1962-63, on oil on canvas. The second one that I chose to be classified as good contemporary art is called “Condensation Cube” by Hans Haacke made from 1963-65, made of acrylic and distilled water.
The pieces of so called ‘bad’ contemporary art to me were not all that bad. I would prefer to classify them as the ones that I least preferred or enjoyed while touring the contemporary room. The first one is untitled, made of 254 pieces of felt by Robert Morris made in 1967. The second one is called “Black Box” by Tony Smith made in 1962-1967, made of steel.
Contemporary art, to me, must have a few basic qualities to be called good art. These qualities influenced me greatly to pick the aforementioned two pieces of art that were good. Firstly, aside from actually looking appealing, it should have such an alluring atmosphere that it makes it look better than the other pieces around it. If it can accomplish this feat, it can be good art. This will cause the audience to pay more deep attention to the piece of art no matter how plain or simple it is. Attributes like appropriate use of colour, medium, and size can allow the good contemporary art to have a greater compelling force to the audience. All these played a major role in the “Painting for the American Negro” as it was a sizable painting that suggested many different images as one, large billboard style of art. The use of bright and vibrant colours also contributed to its mysterious and unusual choice of illustrations to make it appealing to the people who walk by it, as it did to me. Contemporary art should also include features that are not what one sees on a regular basis. It should have an element of irregularity and a new sense to intrigue the audience. This quality was found in quite a few of the pieces in the contemporary room, but it played a big role in the condensation cube. I had never seen such a thing with actual water playing a part in any piece of art which made it more interesting than other pieces in the room.
- If the artworks you were looking at weren’t part of a national collection and within a purpose-built gallery designed by an internationally recognized architect would you still view them the same way? Who do you think makes the decisions of what appears in the National Art Gallery exhibits?
The pieces of artwork found in the contemporary room would definitely be seen different if they were not part of a world-renowned National art gallery. I believe the name and the band image of the gallery plays an important role in how people view art, especially in contemporary form. The art being in a National gallery reinforces people’s minds to think that the pieces displayed in the gallery must really be important works of art chosen by the curators of the gallery. People’s mindset, including mine is completely different according to where the art it seen in. If some of the contemporary art, for example the two rocks or the line of bricks were seen in a smaller, personal exhibit, people would not view the art the same way due to the unreliability of the art. People know that the curators who choose the art do it for a reason for people to view on a national scale. This is why I would not view some of the contemporary art pieces the same way if not placed in the National art gallery.
- Do you have the same reactions to the works online as you did viewing them in person? What’s missing? Is this important in viewing art? Can we have the same understanding of something filtered through a ‘virtual experience’ as exposed to actually experiencing it in person?
Viewing the same piece of work online was definitely not the same as viewing it in person. My reaction after viewing, “Brillo Soap Pads Boxes” by Andy Warhol, made in March-April 1984 online was much less significant than seeing it at the gallery itself. At the gallery, I was able to have a fuller experience with the art, being closer to it and being able to observe the three dimensional piece thoroughly. Even though we were not allowed to touch the pieces, there still is a major difference from viewing them online and in person. Viewing the piece online does not give a full view of the art in all perspectives. Gaining an understanding of the piece of work mainly lacks with viewing it online. One cannot achieve a feeling of understanding of the piece of art as they are not fully engaged; they are merely seeing a picture of it on the web. I believe art is something that needs to be experienced through person. Its qualities cannot simply be observed through a two dimensional screen. The artistic elements that are missing online are the colours, brushstrokes, medium and a much deeper meaning one can perceive while understanding it in person.
Experiencing Art
- A work of art to experience is the ‘infamous’ “Voice of Fire” by Barnett Newman in C214. Stare at either the blue edge of the painting (where they meet the wall) until a bright white line starts to come into view. This can take a minute or two. Then look at the red stripe in the middle…
- Did you see the ‘voice of fire’?
I was able to see the voice of fire after a minute or so. I saw the bright light forming on the edges of the blue stripe at the edge and then I looked at the middle red stripe. It started to change into a bluish colour which seemed like a flame. I was very taken back by this as it gave me a completely different reaction as I first had seen the art from far.
- If you did not, does that make the work of art less great?
If I had not seen the ‘voice of fire’, I would believe to think that the piece of art appear to be less great as it is just a long painting with two blue stripes on the edges and one red stripe in the middle. There would not have been a great significance in viewing the piece without seeing the actual phenomena of the art work.
- Do you think the commercial value of a work of art affects how we view it? Barnett Newman’s “Voice of Fire” was bought by the Gallery in 1989 for $1.8 million and created a lot of controversy as the National Gallery is publicly funded by tax dollars. Does your knowledge of its purchase price affect how you view it? If it had been bought for only $1000 from an unknown artist would you have the same feelings about it?
Commercial value certainly affects how people view a piece of art. Human mindset is such that it values more expensive things greatly as the money spent on it signifies its importance in the world. Because the Gallery had bought the piece for almost $2 million, people would definitely think of it as a very valued piece and worth seeing it. Being bought for such a large sum of money changes surely affected how I viewed the piece of art. People would argue that art is not about how much money it costs or how valuable it is, but it is generally the fact that people are attracted to more expensive items which influence human thought. I would not have the same feelings if this piece in particular was bought for much less and from an unknown artist as it is simply three sections of two different colours.
Artistic Reputation
- Browse through the works of art from some of the galleries (or Caravaggio) near ‘Voice of Fire’ (but not the gallery it is in) –
- Write down the name of the most famous artist (to you).
The most famous artist’s pieces that I saw were of Claude Monet. There were multiple pieces of art which were part of the surrounding galleries near the ‘Voice of Fire’.
- Do you think that the famous artist’s work is superior to the less famous artists in the same room? If not, whose work is better?
After viewing both Claude Monet’s art and the other less known artists, I found that the pieces of art were altogether similar in superiority. I did not see a major difference in the qualities of art that the famous artist, Claude Monet did or the other artists that I was unaware of painted. I would not say there was just one better artist in the room as most of the art I found were at a high level. People would tend to think that the more famous the artist, the better the art, but I did not see that to be the case, I looked at the art itself before judging it by the name of the artist.
- Why are some artists more famous than others?
Some artists become more famous than others mainly if they have created a group of or one really well known piece. This causes the public to recognize the artist just with the extraordinary pieces they have created. The few pieces of art work the artist creates can essentially be their ticket to fame, if it turns our really popular to the people viewing it. The artist can gain more popularity and fame once his or her art becomes famous. Also, if there is a lot of publicity the artist does, such as hold exhibitions, then people would start to recognize the pieces and if they enjoy them then the word would spread about the artist.
- Do you think an artist’s fame and reputation is important in how people judge art?
An artist’s fame and reputation is typically important in how most people judge art. The majority of the public actually interested in viewing art in museums would normally want to see the works of more famous artists and those who have a strong reputation in art, rather than the ones with a lower reputation. This is because people’s satisfaction in viewing the ‘good’ art can usually only be fulfilled by viewing those pieces of art created by the ‘experts’ in art; those who have a solid reputation and the ones who are well known to the public.
- Do you think is matters if an artist is recognized in her or his lifetime? Do you think commercial success affects the pieces that an artist would make? Does this affect the art as ‘art’ or does it become a ‘product’?
Whether or not an artist becomes famous or recognized throughout his lifetime does not matter. Many artists go unrecognized throughout their career, yet they still continue to make art which still goes up in galleries. Many pieces of art in the Gallery are by artists who are usually not known by the general public; however they still get viewed and commented on. Being a recognized artist, however, can certainly boost his or her mentality on created newer pieces of art. Recognized artists will be influenced by the public and will want to strive to create better and more pieces of art to continue their level of fame. This works the same way for movie actors, as once they become famous, they do not stop acting in films; they keep appearing in new ones to keep their reputation up to please the audience. Hence I believe that the commercial success of an artist does play somewhat of an important role in determining the pieces that the artist would make. Because commercial success not only comes as fame and reputation with the public, it also comes with money. This causes the pieces of art the artists makes also a ‘product’ along with it being art. I do not believe it becomes just a product, as the artist created the piece not only for money but also for his own purpose of giving certain intentions to the viewers. However, it is not just art anymore once commercial success is involved. With an artist’s pieces being commercialized, the art become products as it becomes a source of income and publicity for them; not only a piece of art they had made for the sake of it being art.
Final Question
- If your portrait were to be displayed in this Art Gallery, what would be your preferred time period and media? Why? Describe how it would look and any specific details you would include.
If my portrait were to be displayed in this Art gallery, I would prefer it to be placed in the 1800s, or in the first room of the Canadian art section. It would be painting made on oil on canvas, relating to the other paintings in the room. There would be a dark background with me sitting on a chair, with a pose tilted 45 degrees from the painter. I would be wearing a dark coloured suit, giving a very elegant look to the portrait. There would be minimalistic details in the painting as simple paintings with a dark, bold look to it make it an appealing portrait. I would not be looking straight at the painter; my face would be tilted away from the painter to give it a more serious look. I would want it to be on oil on canvas as it was one of the most commonly used mediums that gave a precise look in portraits. My portrait would be in that room as the portraits there were of powerful people and those people who were painted chose it to be that way, which is what I would want. However, there would be less paintings in that room to make it less crowded so people can focus more on a select few portraits, including mine. I picture portraits to be very elegant and more on the serious side which is why I picture my own portrait like this.