Assignment 3: Re-Appropriating Images

 Assignment 3: Re-appropriating Images

For this assignment I have chosen to look at this re-appropriated artwork, the original:

Bridge over a Pond of Water Lilies Claude Monet, 1899

Semiotic Analysis:

This painting is probably one of Monet’s most famous artworks, showing the artist's iconic style with the way the paint is laid, in familiar short strokes and dots. The title literally describes the scene the artist as looking at with specific details such as ‘bridge’  and ‘water lilies’ perhaps to further their significance in the piece,

The artwork is painted vertically, with the main focal point being the Japanese style bridge over a pond brimming full of blooming water lilies, surrounded by thick trees and earth-rooted plant life. As far as landscapes go, this particular one is unusual as it's painted in portrait orientation, which could be because the artist wanted to create length within the perspective of the painting, driving the viewers through and under the bridge to observe the rich wildlife. 

This is one of around a hundred paintings that Monet created in studying his own land as subject matter, though this one remains as the most popular. The values and tones in the painting appear fairly subtle, but on closer inspection the lilies are painted with contrasting colours of red and orange and white, bringing them out of the greenery in the background. Similarly, the red curve shape down the bottom presents shading, to create a reflection of the bridge and creating the impression of water by reflecting the patterns of the trees between the clusters of lilies. 

Before researching the context of the painting, I got the impression Monet wanted to create a work that simulated feelings of peace, tranquility and celebration of life. Even in a setting as basic as this we’re taken in by the invitation of a bridge to observe the continuous beauty of each plant and flower and pond. I believe the reason Monet included the bridge was perhaps to combine man-made structures with nature in a harmonious way. 

Having researched other perspectives and context, some audiences (particularly those more familiar with Monet’s work) explain that the painting is also a representative of the artist’s other passions, including horticulture and botanics. This was land that he had purchased after experiencing success as an artist and so it’s considered to be celebratory of his success both as an artist and a keen gardener, although he hired professionals to create much of the garden's features. The location is based in the artist’s home country of France, specifically Giverny, which makes the Japanese style bridge all the more prominent. Monet pays homage to the influences he experimented from Japanese art and culture by incorporating a bridge in that style into his own land and making it a central feature in his work. 

The original painting is currently on display at The Met, in New York USA, though I have seen many reproductions of the pair ring in the form of prints, postcards, calendars and posters and even ‘paint by numbers’ kits. I believe this is likely to be a major factor in it’s fame and popularity because it has become accessible. It’s no longer necessary to buy expensive tickets and travel to far off destinations when the art can be viewed anywhere at any time. It’s often heard from tourists visiting famous artworks that having experienced seeing the ‘real thing’ they were somewhat underwhelmed. I wonder if it is because the artwork has become so familiar and reproduced that the only connection to the original is simply that it is the original, and not to the art itself. 

However, I believe that being able to reproduce the image on a mass scale provides more in terms of the art’s purpose, because it’s being experienced and studied but by many more people. Viewing artwork such as this is no longer restricted to only those who could afford it or afford the expensive education to understand it and appreciate it. It’s used as an example even in early years school settings to teach children about art and visual communication.

Now, I’m going to look at the re-appropriated image of this artwork: Show Me the Monet, Banksy, 2005

This artwork was produced by the anonymous graffiti artist known as Banksy. Though this work, like the original, is also oil on canvas and was created as part of the series ‘Crude Oil’. 

Previously the work had been on exhibition in London along with other artworks in the series, before being sold at auction in 2020. The piece has also been included in the artist’s publications and similarly reproduced as postcards, posters and prints. It’s arguably as popular as the original, though perhaps with a more modern day audience. The artist wanted to take the original meaning of the work, the peaceful and beautiful scene and ‘damage’ it, creating a more familiar image in today’s world of a littered and contaminated beauty spot. The artist has strong political and social views often expressed through his work, this one in particular represents the artists views on consumerism and waste, resulting in the damage of our natural world.

There are many layers to the interpretation, though some audiences may interpret the polluted water as an act of vandalism, very much like the attitudes towards graffiti that Banksy is accustomed to. Banksy has often decorated public property with his spray painted works, now often sought after and preserved under glass upon discovery, but previously seen as damage and anti-social.

Although Banksy remains anonymous, my research suggests he intended the artwork to express the sadness and frustration at society’s lack of conscience when it comes to consumerism, and the excessive waste it produces which is perhaps why the main items in the water are shopping trolleys. The title though, being a pun, suggests a sense of humour and reflects a popular line from a cult classic movie (“show me the money” from the movie `Jerry Maguire’). The title also furthers the interpretation that, rather sarcastically, the artist is angry at modern day attitudes towards capitalism and pollution. 

Assignment 3: Re-appropriating Images 

For this essay, I have chosen to look at the subject of re-appropriated images with the example of an artwork from the famous (but anonymous) graffiti artist, known as Banksy. The piece I’ve chosen is from a series called ‘Crude Oil’, entitled Show Me The Monet. From the title alone it’s obviously an artwork appropriated from the 19th century French artist Claude Monet, but more specifically it is one of his most well-known works: Bridge over a Pond of Water Lilies. 

The original work, dated 1899, has been the subject of analysis from audiences ranging from children in early years education to various professional art critiques. However, as I am comparing it to its re-appropriated counterpart, I’m going to provide a semiotic analysis of each artwork by discussing the denotations and the connotations of the paintings. This enables me to gain insight and understand the context of each work, which also allows me to truly compare the two.

Simply by looking at the original, I am familiar with the classic impressionist style that the artist is well known for. With short brush strokes and dots of paint, it's recognisable as a painting by Monet. The first thing most of us notice is the simple bridge, over a pond brimming with clusters of brightly coloured water lilies. The water is represented by the repeated paint strokes from the trees to simulate a reflection in the water. The central features are framed with thick greenery and flora, creating a rich contrast to the oranges and reds on the delicate water lilies, bringing them more into focus. Similarly, the red curve towards the bottom of the painting gives the impression of a shadow underneath the bridge, creating more of a relationship between the bridge and its surroundings as well as emphasising the water’s reflections. The painting is orientated vertically as opposed to a typical landscape painting, giving more room for the artist to create the perspective of length as we are drawn into the centre as though looking through and under the bridge into the distance.

Monet has created a scene of tranquility and peace,combining  the natural world and that which it surrounds; a man-made structure. It's a harmonious relationship between humans and nature, the perspective and the bridge itself invites the audiences to go into that environment and experience the beauty of the scene themselves. It's very much as though Monet is sharing with us a moment of contentment and capturing the essence of that as a moment in time in this one painting.

Although many of us are familiar with this particular work, upon research I discovered that this was one of nearly a hundred paintings Monet had created of a similar subject matter. As I’ve come to learn, the paintings are based on the view of Monet’s own land. After experiencing success as an artist he purchased some land in his home country of France, specifically in the region of Giverny. Knowing this, it’s clear that this particular painting could be considered celebratory for his life’s passions that, aside from art, include Japanese culture and horticulture. 

It’s also been interpreted by some audiences as the artist’s celebration of his own success as an artist, taking pride in what he has gained from his career not just in terms of skill but in physical property.

As technology has progressed through the painting’s lifetime, it has become mass produced on a world wide scale. The original is on exhibition still at The Met in New York, USA, and has been reproduced to create calendars, postcards and even ‘paint by numbers’ kits. I believe this has both promoted and hindered the importance of artwork simultaneously. For example, as the image is so familiar because it has become more accessible, it's become available to anyone and everyone. It's no longer reserved to only those who could afford the education or the travel and tickets to experience the art and understand it, it’s now free for anyone to look at, learn about and interpret. However, this could also cause difficulties for the galleries themselves. It’s often been heard that many tourists who visit an original masterpiece become somewhat underwhelmed when seeing the ‘real thing’. This is perhaps because it’s so familiar to them already and they have already experienced the art in some form or another. That being said, the novelty of seeing the original still remains and the original value has more likely increased because of its fame.

The fact that anyone can own a print of the artwork makes the original perhaps more precious and desirable, as it contains the true work from the artist’s own hands and not a printer. 

This perspective is perhaps one of the elements that inspired Banksy’s version Show Me The Monet, painted in 2005. As one of the artworks featured in the artist’s series ‘Crude Oil’, Banksy has used a well known painting to directly express their views on consumerism and the damage it’s causing to our natural world. The re-appropriated image is not an exact copy of the original, but a copied rendition and also painted with oil on canvas. Banksy is more commonly known for his graffiti style works, so this piece is somewhat unusual but shows the artists lesser known skills in painting. It was originally on exhibition in London in unofficial exhibitions, and featured in publications by the artist. It has since been sold to a private collector in London, which I think adds a sense of irony to the work! Like the original, it has also been mass produced like much of the artists other work, though on a much faster timeframe, with thanks to advances in the internet and printing technology. 

Some audiences that are familiar with Banksy’s graffiti may still consider his art to be an act of vandalism, which could also be an interpretation of this piece. Having taken a beautiful artwork and seemingly destroyed it, it could be mistakenly seen as more of a joke and a way of mocking historical artwork. Though I personally believe that it is likely Banksy chose the classic image and included the original artist’s name in the title as a way to reach a wider audience and add an element of alarm at seeing the work defaced, much like nature is currently experiencing. 

Many have interpreted it as one of Banksy’s most iconic works, yet it remains distinctive against the artist’s typical style of using spray paints on public property. Perhaps, like Monet, Banksy is subtly celebrating his success as an artist by adopting another style and reflecting their own interpretation of the original. Banksy’s version has also created a new narrative. It’s  obvious the artist is bringing the audience into a striking reality of a modern era, taking (at the time) a 160 year old painting through time and contemplating what it would like today. Particularly by building on the original’s focal point with additional modern day items including two trolleys and a traffic cone. Much like the japanese style bridge of the original, we are looking at man made objects in the setting of a natural world only with Banksy's version it's more of an invasion rather than a relationship. In comparing the two directly I can see that in Banksy’s version, aside from the obvious contamination, the garden itself has been neglected, depicted by the moss over the bridge and the overgrown plantlife. It's as though Banksy has not only vandalised a masterpiece, but given the context, has polluted Monet’s actual garden. 

Similarly though, it seems both works are in honour of the earth’s natural beauty. Both are aimed at preserving the ecological balance, though initially it was to encapsulate the joy of the cultivation and, through the appropriation of it, Banksy has reminded us of how society used to find joy in simple pleasures such as nature before consumerism and greed took hold and threatened to destroy it.

Word Count:  1321

My Experience of Part 3:

Part three of this course has introduced me to an element of creative arts I had not previously been aware of in terms of graphic design. There were parts of this section I found particularly enjoyable as they reflected hobbies and interests I already had, for example discussing typography in project 2 and even looking at knitting patterns in project 4. These were also relatively simple exercises to do.

However in regards to part 3 on the whole, in comparison to the previous two parts of this course I found this one particularly more difficult. This may have been due to personal circumstances, but also I found some of the concepts difficult to understand. For example, learning to understand the meaning of semiotics took me longer than expected and in particular I found finding representations of time and place in visual communication really difficult. I think this may be because it’s a difficult subject to pinpoint and therefore research and understand. I also have found myself questioning if I have understood what it is to ‘re-appropriate’ an image in terms of visual communications for this essay because I was unsure if the works I chose fit in with the general theme of this section. 

I've also had to take more time with this section of the course as I'm quite unfamiliar with the topics it discusses, such as advertising and media studies. Though that is to be expected in my learning because otherwise I wouldn't be gaining anything from the course.

Exploring different contexts in project 3 became more interesting as i worked my way through the exercises, because it encouraged me to be more considerate in general about how images are used in specific ways to convey meanings in ways that i wouldn't normally pay attention to, for example researching different images of apples.  Additionally, learning about collage and the techniques involved in creating those works was probably the area of this section that i learned most from as I think I subconsciously dismissed collage as more of a children’s activity! I discovered it takes a lot more consideration and is just as valid an art technique as other more conventional medias. In fact, learning about collage actually prompted me to use different software to lay out my research and notes for my learning log. I decided to try ‘procreate’ on my ipad and found that not only was it easier to create mind maps and annotate images but it was more aesthetically pleasing in my blog! I am still working on improving my blogging skills as I update it throughout the course as well.

 

I am hoping that as I review my learning log and receive feedback, I can attempt to revisit some of the areas that I struggled with and perhaps visit other learning logs and discuss with other students how they found these exercises and the assignment. I’d also like to improve my confidence in researching and feel more assertive in the subjects and images I chose to look at, which I am hopeful will improve as I progress through the next two assignments. 

Word count: 518