Studio Art FSEM160

By Allegra Knox

I chose to observe Diane Burko’s prismacolor pencil on Arches paper drawing “Eastern Plains of Colorado #1.” Looking at this drawing, it can be easily recognized as an aerial view of a river surrounded by mountains and trees and other plots of land. The view near the top fades away, as if we were looking at this landscape in person, the detail would fade and blur together as we looked at points farther away. I loved how she used darker gray shading on the mountains/grey forms in the lower left corner to depict the shadows/reflections of clouds overhead. While up close, I thought those forms looked weird and I questioned why she chose to include them, but when I backed away and saw a smoother version of the whole picture, I was amazed by how well it worked to look like it would in person. However, just because the landscape is recognizable does not necessarily mean it is portrayed realistically. Burko’s choice of medium greatly influences the perception of this drawing. The rough paper creates white space within each color she uses, no matter how dark or hard she used the pencil. This was a feature that immediately attracted my eye, and I really enjoyed the effect it created on the drawing, but it immediately informs the audience that this is a drawing, with a near-abstract depiction of color, rather than reassuring the audience that this drawing is as good of an interpretation of reality as she could manage. From afar, the white spots are barely noticeable. It creates a pleasant, light, but dimensional perspective on what she is depicting. Up close, the dots take up nearly half the image. In between every color, every pencil-stroke, the white space is there. When inspecting the drawing close-up, the white space creates texture. The landscape is recognizable and very coherent; however, I feel the coloring technique, choice of medium, and white space immediately alerts the viewer that the artist made a creative choice to deviate from what they saw in reality in order to make it more visually appealing. Initially, I did not get a sense of expression, that this drawing “came from within” or showed emotion—which made sense, since it is a drawing of a landscape… However, once I read the description for the drawing, I understood that there was an issue Burko was trying to address. She claims that this series focuses on global warming, especially glacial melting in the arctic. When I read this, I assumed this river was a new river caused by increased snowmelt. As I progressed in reading her caption, I learned that this drawing was actually meant to show road-building and agriculture have created artificial shapes on the land. So, while this drawing does represent a “bigger picture,” I am not sure it “stands on its own” because I only interpreted it as a landscape, not the impact humans have on it, until I read the description. This could relate to our discussion on the Gombrich reading, or Errol Morris’ “Photography as a Weapon” essay, where there is an argument that the truth of a painting may change as a title/caption is revealed or changed. While I saw this drawing and saw a landscape before reading the caption, I could have read the caption first and immediately recognized—even sought out—the man-made forms on the land. However, without knowing this drawing was focusing on man-made forms, I simply accepted them as a natural part of the landscape. After staring at the painting for a long time (about 5 minutes) I began to zone-out, honestly. I thought I had recognized the forms, what was happening, etc. But after about a minute, I snapped back and tried to continue the in-depth observation. What I recognized was that I could see the graphite/pencil Burko had used to sketch out the initial design. I noticed a tiny white square in the bottom right corner of the drawing, and spent some time trying to figure out what that was. I stood up and got closer to the drawing to see if the heavier-colored spots rose higher on the drawing than the faded areas (they did not). Ultimately, I learned that even though I had thought I was done looking at the drawing, and thought that it was just a simple landscape and I didn’t have too much to observe, there is a lot to recognize in a drawing of something seemingly familiar. Even though I had interpreted it initially as just trees, mountains, a river etc, I had a lot to learn and observe. I’m sure if I went back to sit in front of it again I would discover even more.

In Morris’s essay “Photography as a Weapon,” he discusses the consequences of learning false information and trying to “unlearn” it once you recognize it is not true. If we see the Evans photographs and learn that they represent a sharecropper’s house and then learn they were staged, later we will only remember that the photos represent the house, and forget that they were staged, according to Morris. In contrast, if we know in advance Rothstein’s photos were staged to promote a film, we can make the connection with the skull and a way of propaganda. Because of the points Morris makes about the manipulation of photographs and how we perceive them, I believe the context of learning about the two men’s photographs matters and is essential in experiencing the truth of their work.

Prior knowledge to photography and nature allow me to recognize that a photographer went out of their way to portray the lake like this. It is important to recognize that we are only seeing the lake how the photographer wants us to see it. Partially, this photo tells the truth that the lake can be beautiful, with the sun around it and clear air. However, this photograph does not reveal how the view changes with the weather, or if it is surrounded by pollution. Allegra Knox