I think that Christo and Jeanne-Claude's artwork of the “Umbrellas” was very creative. I’m not exactly sure what they were thinking when they created this work, but I have an idea. I think that they were thinking about the visual perception of art. What do people view art as, is the question they were thinking about? They then came up with an idea to spread umbrellas all over the world to prove that art could be more than just a painting or object in one place. I think that they wanted to challenge the world with the definition of art in a person’s physical and psychological process of seeing. Everyone sees things differently, and I believe that the artist viewed this piece of art as striking and noteworthy.
I think that “Umbrellas” was very beautiful and appealing, but then again everyone’s psychological and physical perception of things is different. I may see the color red as uplifting and radiant, but some else may see it as depressing and unhappy. No two people see the same thing and perceive the same thing. I think that the idea of spreading umbrellas for miles and miles is an original idea, and very appealing. I think that art has to be appealing and beautiful to the naked eye. The definition of art is: the creation of beautiful or significant things. So therefore, a piece of artwork is supposed to be beautiful and significant no matter what. Although, I think that sometimes artwork isn’t beautiful, it all depends on how people look at it. The questions would arise: What really is beautiful? What makes something beautiful? Who is to determine when something is beautiful or ugly? The answer to all of these questions is that it is in the eye of the beholder.
If I had to defend “Umbrellas” I would definitely say that “Umbrellas” is just as significant, or maybe even more significant as "Lady Elizabeth DelmÈ and Her Children" The reason being is this: “Umbrellas” is a physical piece of artwork that has true meaning and feelings. Just because the artist decided to use “real” land and umbrellas to create it doesn’t mean that it’s not significant. The artwork "Lady Elizabeth DelmÈ and Her Children" was oil painted on canvas. What if the artist would have staged real people in a park under a tree? Would have not been considered a significant piece of art because the artist was using “real” people and objects instead of oil on canvas? I think it is more significant to view thousands of umbrellas spread out across the world than to look at an oil painting on a wall that’s of some people in an outdoor scene. The umbrellas in Japan were blue, which stood for the water that enriched the vegetation year round. They were in the pattern of the rows of rice fields, and when water runs, it looks like rows. The umbrellas in the US were yellow, which stood for the sun, because the landscape in California was very dry and blonde. They were in a whimsical pattern and spread in every direction, just as the sun is when it beats down on the earth. The umbrellas had a meaning and therefore were very significant.

Registered Members, login
Join now, it's free

Property of EssaySwap.com