Development of a Bottle in Space and Nickel Construction - Research Paper Example

Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Introduction Paintings and sculptures have been used for a long period of time for the purposes of conveying messages. It is through the study of the past paintings that the history of the past can be interpreted. However, the correct interpretation is always required with an aim of obtaining the correct information. The factors that influence the artist to paint a certain picture or create a sculpture may differ. This depends with the events taking place at the time of the painting. It is for this reason that the most societies depend on the works of the painters in relaying information to the authorities. It is also important to note that such works of art was used in the past for the purpose of criticizing a certain ill taking place in the society. The works of artists are important aspects of history and it has influenced the daily lives of the people since the historic times (Dickerman, et al, 5)1. The paper critically discusses the development of a bottle in space and nickel construction which are works by different artists. Motivating factors and influences Boccioni who developed the sculpture called the development of a bottle in space was influenced by the literature and works of another author. The literature was mainly about the futurists ideas which greatly contributed to the development of the sculpture. According to Ottinger, (19), Boccioni was also a futurist and was obsessed with the future technological inventions. He believed that the future would be full of technological inventions2. His sculpture therefore reflected the mass production of glass which came into reality later own. It is thus important to note that the futuristic ideas of Boccioni greatly influenced his work. Moholy on the other hand who was the artist behind the nickel construction had other ideas. He was greatly influenced by constructivism. He was also optimistic about the future in relation to the field of construction and the uses of metals. The development of the Nickel construction was also influenced by his work in the workshop. He was able to establish the sculpture through a step by step process. Currently, his sculpture reflects the extraction process of Nickel. It is thus evident that the two artists had similarities in terms of developments. However, it is evident that Boccioni was a futurist while Moholy was a constructivist and these ideas influenced their work3. Goals and social implication Moholy was a strong advocate of technology in the industrial sector. His works therefore did not bear any political message. This is unlike most of the artists who use their skills to relay political information. He was not interested in religion philosophy in his works. His works can mainly be attributed to science and some of the current events in the manufacturing industry. While working as a professor, he was optimistic about the use of technology in solving the problems faced by the people at the time (Borchardt-Hume, 10)4. It is thus evident that he was more influenced by technology as opposed to religion and philosophy. On the other hand, Boccioni was also influenced by technology in his works. His sculpture is also associated with the current events as it is being witnessed in the glass production industry. His works also did not bear political implications and was more of science and technology. His works also has other interpretations which is the theory of isolation. In his own interpretation, he suggested at one point that an object cannot exist on its own. It is thus evident that the two artists share a lot of similarities in their work. Science and technology has been impacted positively by the works5. Figural distortions The original sculpture was made of bronze and it was composed of an enclosed bottle but was later slotted. The opening created a different scenario for the sculpture and it also lead to other interpretation of the sculpture. The changes in the sculpture also resulted to the interpretation of a different theory which is dynamism. This is about the movement of objects which is also portrayed in some other works by the artist. The changes of the structure therefore led to the interpretation of his works in terms of futurism and dynamism. On the other hand, the works of Moholy was partly distorted although the structure remained the same. The distortion however did not have many changes in the sculpture. It therefore did not affect the interpretation of the sculpture. The change was also for the purpose of modernizing the sculpture so as to give it a modern look. It is important to note that the distortion and change of material from the original sculpture has impacts o the quality of the work. The changes may be for the purpose of improving the quality or to change the message. It is evident that the changes made by Boccioni were for the purpose of changing the message of the sculpture6 (Herbert, 13). Relationship with other works The works of most artists are usually done in series and have relationships with their previous works. On the other hand, some of the works are not related at all although they have been developed by the same artist. This may be attributed t the prevailing situation and the message that the artist is trying to put across at the time. The works of Boccioni is not a series of any other works that he was doing. However, it has a relationship with some other works that he had done previously. Some other works he had done involved dynamism and futurism which was his main influence7 (Richard, 9). It is thus important to note that most of his work had the same relationship due to the concepts of futurism and dynamism. However the work was not a series of the previous works. On the other hand, the works of Moholy was also influenced by the same ideas which were constructivism. However, the sculpture was not a series of his works but rather independent. The independence of his work was due to the message that the sculpture had. Each of the sculpture and painting he developed had a unique message. The independence of the works of the two artistic is thus a similarity although their ideologies were not the same8. Interpretation of the works Artists may sometimes decide to maintain their styles or in other instances change their styles. This is dependant on the message as well as the audience. The change of style may be an indication of change of ideologies of the artist. The sculpture developed by Moholy did not indicate any change of style with the previous works. Most of his works were developed similarly using the same style. It is thus evident that the audiences were satisfied with his style he was using. His concepts also remained the same as his ideologies were not changing. The same applies to Boccioni who also maintained the same style as his previous works. Dynamism and futurism was evident in his sculpture and were also evident in the other works he was doing. The works of both artists also typifies their movements. The works of Boccioni has a lot of elements of futurism as well as dynamism. This interpretation therefore shows that he was not only passing his message but wanted his movement to be known. Moholy on the other hand had similar ideas as constructivism is portrayed in his works9 (Coen, 14). The presence of items that signifies the future in his work is an indication that he was his works also portrayed his movement. It is also common for artists to typify their movements through their works. This is evident in most of the paintings and sculptures of most of the artists. Interpretation by critics and public The works of the artists always requires a lot interpretation as it is always composed of hidden meanings. Criticism is also common in most of the cases as the works may have positive or negative meanings depending on the interpretation10. The work of Boccioni received several criticisms in the past and it has continued to post different opinions among the members of the public. Some of the people argued that the works was perfect and the ideas of the artist were well portrayed. However, other critics did not endorse the works. This is due to the difference in terms of the interpretation11. One of the critics who did not endorse the works suggested that the sculpture had a sexual interpretation while other urged that it did not have a vision as portrayed by Boccioni himself. The works of Moholy however did not receive much criticism as compared to that of Boccioni. This is because of the scientific nature of his sculpture and its interpretation. Most members of the public endorsed his sculpture and hence the less criticism. However, those who were opposed to the idea of constructivism had some criticism for his work12 (Schirn, 22). It is thus evident that the public and scholars play an important role in the interpretation of the sculpture. The criticism is always present and it may be positive or negative. Conclusion In conclusion, it is evident that the works of both artists had a lot of similarities. However, the differences are also present and it is mainly centered on their ideologies. Boccioni was influenced by futurism while Moholy was influenced by constructivism. These two ideologies are also evident on the works of both artists and it played an important role in the development of the sculptures. It is also evident that the interpretation of the works of the artists differs among the members of the public. The difference in interpretation is what led to the wide spread criticism of the work of Boccioni s compared to Moholy. It is also evident that the works of the two artists were closely related to other works done by the artists. This is due to the ideologies that the artists were using during the development of their sculptures. Works Cited Ottinger, Didier, Futurism, Paris: Pompidou and London: Tate Modern, 2009. Borchardt-Hume, Achim, ed., Albers and Moholy-Nagy: From the Bauhaus to the New World, exhibition catalogue, London: Tate Modern, and New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006. Herbert, Read, Modern Sculpture: A Concise History, Thames & Hudson World of Art, Reprinted 2006. Richard, Humphreys, Futurism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Coen, Ester, Umberto Boccioni, exhibition catalogue, New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1988. Dickerman, Leah, et al, Inventing Abstraction, 1910-1925: How a Radical Idea Changed Modern Art, exhibition catalogue, New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2012. Schirn, Kunsthalle Laszlo Moholy-Nagy Retrospektive, Ingrid Pfeiffer, exhibition catalogue, Frankfurt, 2009. Read More