Kurt Schwitters, Mz 299, 1921 By Encyclopedia Britannica Soon after World War I, Kurt Schwitters was attracted by the emerging Dada school, a nihilistic literary and artistic movement dedicated to the destruction of existing aesthetic values. Denied membership in the Berlin circle of Dadaists, he formed his own variant in Hannover. He began to create compositions assembled from various everyday objects (train tickets, wooden spools, newspaper, string, cigarettes, and postage stamps). Similarly, his poems were composites of newspaper headlines, advertising slogans, and other printed ephemera. He referred to all of his artistic activities as Merz, a nonsense word derived from the second syllable of the word Kommerz (German: “commerce”). His collages were called Merzbilden (“Merz pictures”). Later, he also referred to all of his daily activities and even to himself by that name. In 1937, when the German government declared Schwitters' art decadent, he moved to Norway. With the German invasion of Norway in 1940, however, Schwitters was forced to escape to England. The 'Mz' in the title of this work stands for 'Merz' and is followed by a number to denote that it is the 299th collage of the series. Schwitters produced around 2000 collages during his life, using coloured and printed papers with a variety of textures. His inclusion of fragments of paper, which have text on them, is reminiscent of cubist works, which feature scraps of newspaper. Schwitters's collages of 1920 to 1922 frequently employ a 'radiating' format, with diagonally pasted papers fanning out from the bottom centre. (words: 243)
Image Details: * Accession no. GMA 4081 * Medium Collage on paper * Size 18.00 x 14.50 cm (including mount: 20.00 x 16.00 cm) * Copyright © DACS 2006 * Credit Bequeathed by Gabrielle Keiller 1995 * Subjects [1] Dada www.nationalgalleries.org/collection/online_a
Comment on the above caption. What would you add or take out? What type of information is focused on in the sample? What would you do differently?
22 comments:
This piece of art is very interesting. Kurt Schwitters's used various objects to produce his art.
I would take out "Later, he also referred to all of his daily activities and even to himself by that name. In 1937, when the German government declared Schwitters' art decadent, https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6719553819515740076&postID=3413702002817383276
Blogger: The Making - Post a Commenthe moved to Norway. With the German invasion of Norway in 1940, however, Schwitters was forced to escape to England."
I feel like these lines don't describe the art, they describe the artist. A caption should include what the art means or describes. If I could add something to this caption, I would talk about what the art means to the artist. What is the theme of the art, why did he produce this? This caption is focused more on the artist's background rather than the art itself. I love how he uses everyday objects to express himself, so I would focus on the meaning of those objects. In terms of Albeti's ideas on painting, is there an istoria? These are questions I would ask and try to answer for this caption. I have a hard time interpreting this art, it’s very abstract. I can’t find the center vantage point, and I can’t relate to what the artist is trying to express.
The caption seems to focus a lot on the history time period in which the art was done. It is good in bringing the reader into the time period to understand why the artist did this piece of work. The writer did not however focus or even discuss the content of the picture and what it means. How does the audience view it? What is the rhetoric of the painting? Since the essay specifically asks us about these things, I would definitely include this in the analysis of the art work.I would cut out the elaboration of the cubism art since this is not cubism art but only like it, so it might confuse the reader. Also I would take out the information about him calling himself Merz and in his daily activities. The writer could also bring in a theme for the art work. However, I like how the writer brings in the way the art work was made since that is important in the production and composition of the artwork. Also, the author should include the viewpoint of the painting and focus more on the representation of it. Also, I was a little confused with the word "radiating" in terms of the picture, and I think the author could elaborate on it. The author should probably go to different websites to try to understand what specific meaning this painting brings.
This caption, I think, provides a little bit of everything. However there are bits of superfluous information that, though necessary in understand the artist himself, aren't as important to the art. The caption talks a lot about Schwitter and his exile to various countries which I think doesn't need to be included because it doesn't give or take away from the piece itself. It's an interesting tidbit, but it doesn't provide anything in regard to this particular piece. I like how the caption describes Schwitter's paintings, and what he does with various objects; it's intriguing and also provides depth as to why the painting is the way it is. Also, it's interesting about the connections from Schwitter to other movements, such as Cubism.
I would delete trivial sentences, those that one can find just by searching about the artist or painting. In replace, I would add something about the art itself, why he used these colors, what time period was he in/trying to create by using these shapes and colors. Including some history surrounding the piece would be excellent. I think describing the painting itself and who the artist identified with it would be more beneficial to understanding it.
This may be quite a stretch, but when I see this image, I see an image of an angry face; the black coin is the eye, and the angled riser on top resembles a frown. This anger could've risen due to being,
"Denied membership in the Berlin circle of Dadaists"
Well, anyways, this is a jack-of-all trades kind of question, where it becomes almost a mini biography of his life as well. There isn't a strong, central focus to the artwork itself, which, is what we would have wanted, no? However, the background history of him being denied entrance into Berlin's Dada, his constant moving, etc, adds a layer of human depth and movement happening "behind the scenes."
What I find missing from this fine piece of Dada artwork, is an analysis of what the heck is actually being shown. But then again, having an interpretation caption right below removes all the fun of trying to come up with our OWN lovely butchering interpretation of it.
<3
I personally like Schwitters style, specifically the unorthodox approach to using various random items... Anyway my changes to this entry would be. All i did was shorten it...
Soon after World War I, Kurt Schwitters was attracted by the emerging Dada school, a nihilistic literary and artistic movement dedicated to the destruction of existing aesthetic values. Denied membership in the Berlin circle of Dadaists, he formed his own variant in Hannover. He began to create compositions assembled from various everyday objects (train tickets, wooden spools, newspaper, string, cigarettes, and postage stamps). He referred to all of his artistic activities as Merz, a nonsense word derived from the second syllable of the word Kommerz (German: “commerce”). His collages were called Merzbilden (“Merz pictures”), and eventually he referred to all of his daily activities and even to himself by that name. In 1937, when the German government declared Schwitters' art decadent, he moved to Norway, With the German invasion of Norway in 1940, however, Schwitters was forced to escape to England. The 'Mz' in the title of this work stands for 'Merz' and is followed by a number to denote that it is the 299th collage of the series. Schwitters produced around 2000 collages during his life, using coloured and printed papers with a variety of textures. Schwitters's collages of 1920 to 1922 frequently employ a 'radiating' format, with diagonally pasted papers fanning out from the bottom center.
Now i also found myself confused, i felt that these captions should be focused more on the piece of art rather then the artist or the atrists methods, although important not the focus. The only line that mentions anything about the art piece itself is the very last line... other than the analysis of the artist there is also analysis of his methodology.
This work is unique, because it takes alot of different things and just puts it together.
In the caption, there are a few irrelevant things that you could put there, but if taken out, it wouldn't be a missing piece of the puzzle. I agree with jill when she said that the caption gives more information on the artist then the work itself. by reading the caption, i know where the artist came from and the things he did, but im still a little confused as to the work and what the meaning of it really is. So, the change the caption up a little bit, i would take out information of the artist and replace it with information on the work of the artist.
The caption is very informative and gives background on Schwitters, but it becomes boring for the audience as it fails to dissect the image from the blog and give the istoria). To capture more attention, the writer of this caption should have clarified Shcwitters’ variant of Dadaism. In doing so, the readers can follow along with the intention behind the art. The article could also talk about Schwitter’s collage in more detail and possibly incorporate the steps he took to create it. This information would keep the audience more focused. The name that he called himself as well as his art and his daily practice (Merz) could be fully explained to give readers a better idea of the way in which he was tied to his art. The caption would be more interesting if it mentioned how society affected Schwitter's art. By saying why he chose ordinary objects for his collages, the audience would have a better understanding of his istoria whether it be political or social). The writer could leave out the section that mentions about his “papers fanning” and “radiating format.” These descriptions have no included connection to Schwitter’s istoria. In picking out details from the image on the blog and connecting it to a historia, the readers would be able to make a similar connection and have a better understanding of Schwitter. The caption rambles on about the life of Schwitter while it fails to bring up his istoria.
The caption focuses on the artist’s background, which is important in understanding his works. However, I do not think it is necessary to dedicate almost the entire caption to the author’s life story and how he came about to creating his artwork. I think the author should have focused more on that particular collage that was chosen. The author could explain the color choices, how he interpreted the meaning of the collage, and what is meant by radiating format.
Dadaism is a concept which really intrigues me – simply altering things to completely revamp their message completely. However, I don’t like this particular work posted. To me, this work, seems to have no meaning, it’s too pretentious in a sense that the composer tries too hard to put meaning into his work – I don’t agree. The idea that he uses simple everyday objects to create art is impressive but personally, I don’t like it. I understand the meaning of his art – metaphorically, a destruction of news, politics, and society cleverly woven into a collage of sorts. I appreciate him trying to make a stand against the political regime, but overall he doesn’t move me. Additionally, this ‘radiating’ technique is too boring for me, too juvenile. If it was up to me, and I had a gallery, this wouldn’t even make it to the door. I may be a little biased, but some things are just too nonsensical to be considered art, personally speaking of course. This caption primarily focuses on his techniques and what he implements into his works and his message. To make the caption more powerful, they should add the tone/s Schwitter was looking for – so that the reader could be struck with an “Oh, I get it” moment. Again, if I could do it differently, I would just omit this from my choices – it simply does not go with me.
The caption discusses how Kurt Schwitter made his art. He used everyday objects such as newspaper clippings, stamps and train tickets. It also discusses some background history on how he started his own art circle and how he had to flee Germany due to the German government calling his art "decadent".
What could be added to this caption is the impact it created on society and the messages it conveys.
The caption states that Kurt Schwitter had to leave Germany because his art was "decadent". But what was "decadent" about it? What kind of messages did they convey? Why is it important we know he was to flee if the caption doesn't state why the government thought it "decadent"?
This caption is extremely informative which was interesting to read, especially with such a difficult, abstract art. However, this picture describes much about the style of the artist and all of the collages he has done and too little about the actual implications and indications of this particular collage. He does not expand on the rhetoric of the art. Though he does mention much about the ethos, there is a lack of elaboration on pathos and logos. The important question the caption has to answer is, "what is the meaning or purpose for this particular collage." Without answering this question, the complete substance to back up the theme is completely empty.
The caption's focus is on Schwitters’ background and eventually talks about his collage. Like the previous caption the picture's analysis is given the smallest area of focus. I think the focus should have been on the collage depicted. The whole area devoted to the reason he called himself "Merz" needs to be cut down because it takes away from the picture given. I would add more background on the technique behind his collages and the significance behind showing this image.
This painting by Kurt Schwitters has a lot of unique elements and details that should be explained in a caption for those who are unfamiliar with Schwitters or his art. The problem with the caption provided is that it has too much irrelevant information and it does not explain how these details about his life relate to the painting itself. Instead of clarifying for the viewer the story behind this painting as captions are supposed to do, the one provided here would confuse the reader because of the way it switches back and forth between Schwitter’s life and accomplishments. Therefore, due to the way it randomly combines facts and various descriptions together in an unstructured way, this caption unfortunately is ineffective at providing background information. For this painting the purpose of a caption in the first place is to offer an opportunity for someone with no background information about Schwitters to understand a bit about him and his art. To make this caption less inconsistent and awkwardly structured, I would change it so that it’s more than just one paragraph, take out details about his past life and poems, and add details about the painting that is representative of his artistic profile.
I would delete the following sentences:
-“Denied membership in the Berlin circle of Dadaists, he formed his own variant in Hannover.”
-“Similarly, his poems were composites of newspaper headlines, advertising slogans, and other printed ephemera.”
-“In 1937, when the German government declared Schwitters' art decadent, he moved to Norway. With the German invasion of Norway in 1940, however, Schwitters was forced to escape to England.”
Deleting these sentences from the caption would cut out all the irrelevant pieces of information. The remaining sentences in the caption focus specifically on Schwitter’s art, design, and style. This would relate overall better to the painting shown.
Following the last paragraph on Schwitter’s particular style, I would add analysis of how his unique style, and habit of using text and diagonally pasted papers is seen in this painting. I would elaborate on the mix shades of brown I see, the disorganization, and feeling of chaos I get from looking at the image.
Alex Wong:
I felt like this caption addressed the image itself rather than what the image was depicting or showing. I really find that distinction hard to make when thinking about the scope of a caption. However, I think that this caption has a done an excellent job of giving appropriate background information on the image as well as presenting the context in which the art was created.
I agree with jill sorathia when she says "these lines don't describe the art" but I feel that any attempt by a caption to actively ascribe the artpiece a meaning would mean destroying the integrity of the art as a work which requires personal engagement before an interpreter viewing the art can find meaning. Also, I think that the artist, to a certain degree, meant for his work to be nonsensical since he has personally ascribed the nonsense name "mertz" to it. Finding meaning in something which has no meaning on the surface is very interpretive and probably has no definitive answer. So, I think the caption has done a good job in suggesting a meaning by introducing "mertz" but not ascribing a meaning by saying something along the lines of 'This artpiece means..." like there is any ultimate answer.
Kurt Schwitters, Mz 299, 1921 By Encyclopedia Britannica Soon after World War I, Kurt Schwitters was attracted by the emerging Dada school, a [...] literary [...] artistic movement dedicated to the destruction of existing aesthetic values. Denied membership in the Berlin circle of Dadaists, he formed his own variant in Hannover. He began to create compositions assembled from various everyday objects (train tickets, wooden spools, newspaper, string, cigarettes, and postage stamps). Similarly, his poems were composites of newspaper headlines, advertising slogans, and other printed ephemera. He referred to all of his artistic activities as Merz, [...] derived from the second syllable of the word Kommerz (German: “commerce”). His collages were called Merzbilden (“Merz pictures”). [...] In 1937, when the German government declared Schwitters' art decadent, he moved to Norway. With the German invasion of Norway in 1940, however, Schwitters was forced to escape to England. The 'Mz' in the title of this work stands for 'Merz' and is [...] the 299th collage of the series. Schwitters produced around 2000 collages during his life, using coloured and printed papers with a variety of textures. His inclusion of fragments of [printed] paper [...] is reminiscent of cubist works, which feature scraps of newspaper. Schwitters's collages of 1920 to 1922 frequently employ a 'radiating' format, with diagonally pasted papers fanning out from the bottom centre.
The caption focuses on a little bit of Schwitter's background, his history with the Dadaist, and his art.
Overall, the caption focuses well on the subject at hand, but is biased with a deliberate use of negative diction.
I wouldn't necessarily make any changes other than make the caption less biased.
This caption gives a good amount of background information to the photo and ties everything in together very well. This picture is particularly difficult to understand and the collage, unlike most, seems to be somewhat meaningless as nothing is dominant in the picture. When i look at it, nothing in particular catches my eye. This caption gives me a better sense of understanding the way in which this was created. However, I still do not have a sense of what it is representing or standing for. I think this needs more interpretation of the painting in addition to the background information to make the caption complete. I believe that history of this is necessary in order to help one better understand what is going on.
This piece of art seems very interesting because it is made up of various elements and seems much like a montage of sorts. Schwitter's art seems to capture the time period very well because in the post World War I era, there was much change and this art reflects the change that was taking place in the world. Because the piece is made of various different elements, the piece reflects the many different and changing parts of the world that the post World War I era reflected.
I believe a caption to a picture tells the history itself. Not in its entirety, so some background is needed, not as much information as this caption has. I would keep everything but:
"Denied membership in the Berlin circle of Dadaists, he formed his own variant in Hannover. "
"Similarly, his poems were composites of newspaper headlines, advertising slogans, and other printed ephemera. "
The title sample caption, gives way to start thinking about the piece of art, which is clearly a collage to make up one thing. The art looks like chaos, hard to make out anything and understand whats going on. He could be expressing his distatse and displeasure for what the Germans are doing.
Schwitters makes more abstract, but real art that describes the current times, and how their hardships come from the economy. Some of the extraneous parts that do not need to be included are…
“His collages were called Merzbilden (“Merz pictures”). Later, he also referred to all of his daily activities and even to himself by that name.”
This is just an extraneous bit of information, that does not lead to a deeper understanding of his work, or lead us to a deeper understanding either.
The title sample caption, gives way to start thinking about the piece of art, which is clearly a collage to make up one thing. The art looks like chaos, hard to make out anything and understand whats going on. He could be expressing his distatse and displeasure for what the Germans are doing.
Schwitters makes more abstract, but real art that describes the current times, and how their hardships come from the economy. Some of the extraneous parts that do not need to be included are…
“His collages were called Merzbilden (“Merz pictures”). Later, he also referred to all of his daily activities and even to himself by that name.”
This is just an extraneous bit of information, that does not lead to a deeper understanding of his work, or lead us to a deeper understanding either.
A in the previous caption, this caption has a lot of artist information and some context. It doesn't, however, provide much context for the particular work of art, or really the purpose of "Merz" in general. I am interested why artists art the way they art. What they are trying to say with the art. I think i would take out the part that details his fleeing to different countries, but keep in the part about how Germany didn't like his art. Once again very descriptive and good, but not enough focused on the art to me. The Content, Communications and Conclusions of the actual work(s) of art.
Post a Comment