ANALYZING/DECONSTRUCTING CRITICAL FOUNDATIONS & ARTISTIC ASSUMPTIONS
Hubert Duprat
link
The work that Hubert Duprat did with the caddisflies is really interesting to me. The caddisfly insect spins itself a protective shell from the materials that surround it, usually leaves or some kind of dirt. However, this French artist decided to surround his caddisflies with bits of gold leaf and precious stones. Eventually, the caddisflies created shells for themselves out of these precious materials and the result was quite beautiful.
I think it’s interesting that this artist has made something beautiful out of something that is usually considered disgusting or unwanted. No one would usually consider a normal caddisfly shell as something to behold, but when the shell is made up of gold instead of more natural and earthy materials, it suddenly becomes something completely different.
He did another piece with caddisflies in which he made them construct their shells out of tiny shells. I find that extremely interesting. If the work with the gold is meant to portray a shell as something to behold, then a shell made out of shells presents a new and interesting option. It’s like someone building a person’s house out of bird nests. It’s providing a home and shelter for the caddisfly out of someone or something else’s home.
This could also present a sort of social commentary. People live in houses so huge that just the size of one room could be considered a house in itself to someone else of lesser fortune. 
It’s also interesting how all of this thought and inspiration can come from something so simple as a small alteration to the life of an insect. I think Hubert Duprat was a genius for coming up with the idea. He created something amazing out of something that is usually overlooked and considered dull.

ANALYZING/DECONSTRUCTING CRITICAL FOUNDATIONS & ARTISTIC ASSUMPTIONS

Hubert Duprat

link

The work that Hubert Duprat did with the caddisflies is really interesting to me. The caddisfly insect spins itself a protective shell from the materials that surround it, usually leaves or some kind of dirt. However, this French artist decided to surround his caddisflies with bits of gold leaf and precious stones. Eventually, the caddisflies created shells for themselves out of these precious materials and the result was quite beautiful.

I think it’s interesting that this artist has made something beautiful out of something that is usually considered disgusting or unwanted. No one would usually consider a normal caddisfly shell as something to behold, but when the shell is made up of gold instead of more natural and earthy materials, it suddenly becomes something completely different.

He did another piece with caddisflies in which he made them construct their shells out of tiny shells. I find that extremely interesting. If the work with the gold is meant to portray a shell as something to behold, then a shell made out of shells presents a new and interesting option. It’s like someone building a person’s house out of bird nests. It’s providing a home and shelter for the caddisfly out of someone or something else’s home.

This could also present a sort of social commentary. People live in houses so huge that just the size of one room could be considered a house in itself to someone else of lesser fortune. 

It’s also interesting how all of this thought and inspiration can come from something so simple as a small alteration to the life of an insect. I think Hubert Duprat was a genius for coming up with the idea. He created something amazing out of something that is usually overlooked and considered dull.

ANALYZING/DECONSTRUCTING CRITICAL FOUNDATIONS & ARTISTIC ASSUMPTIONS

Brian Froud

Website

Brian Froud’s work interests and inspires me in a multitude of ways. Much care is given to even the tiniest of details and really draws me in to the pieces. I also like the way his work has a simplistic flow to it despite its complexities, and never fails to evoke emotion both from itself and the viewer. The work always holds a strong narrative aspect that I find inspiring. It’s almost as if it can tell an entire story in one image.

I’ve always loved movies he has worked on with Jim Henson like Labyrinth and The Dark Crystal, but not until this semester when I was watching the making of The Dark Crystal with my roommates did I decide to really look more closely into Brian Froud’s work.

There was a segment of the ‘making of’ movie for The Dark Crystal where Jim Henson introduced where he found his inspiration for the movie from. Apparently he had seen some of the works of the English illustrator Brian Froud and instantly wanted him to design the characters, backgrounds, and theme for his movie. He then based the puppets and characters for his movie off of Brian Froud’s work and concept sketches. After the success of The Dark Crystal, the two continued to work together and eventually created Labyrinth as well.

Personally, I find this artist very unique. Not only are his creature designs original and interesting but I also love the tone of the work. Mostly browns and other duller colors are used, which make it feel natural. I think this separates his work from that of other fantasy artists because it doesn’t need bright and shocking colors to give off a fantasy feel. The tone is very calming and relaxes you as it brings you into its world.

Artistic attitude

I think artistic attitude is a reflection of the artist. Each artist has their own personal aesthetic and views that will usually show through in their work - especially regarding personal artwork. It can also reflect the way an artist approaches the process of making art and what they are inspired by. Some people may be inspired by a movie they watched or a conversation they had, and then choose to make art because of it. Then comes the question of how they are going to make it and what they are going to make. All of these choices that have to be made go into what artistic attitude is, along with what the finished piece itself reflects.

Personally, I think my artistic attitude leans more toward reflecting emotion. Usually my art is not made to make a statement or have any real profound meaning. I simply feel a need to express an emotion through a figure. This isn’t necessarily any emotion I feel myself. It may be inspired by the thoughts and attitudes of others. Half the time I don’t even purposely do it, but I’ve recently realized that expression of emotion is present rather consistently in my art. I guess that would make my attitude toward art as being a means to express human sentiment.

Responding to Kinkade/Forming a judgement

I don’t like Kinkade and never have. Actually, when I was about 4 or 5 my mother had a Kinkade painting up in the living room. It was just some scenery, a bunch of pretty trees. I hated it. Every day I’d have to walk past it and even at such a young age it irked me for some strange reason. Eventually I got so fed up with it I threw a dog bone right through the center of it. My mom freaked out about it because the painting was so expensive, but there was nothing she could really do about it so she left it there. That painting stayed in my living room with a huge hole in it for I don’t know how many years. Probably at least a decade. I remember liking the painting a lot better after the dog bone incident. It made me laugh.

Anyway, when I was in elementary I had an art teacher who also hated Kinkade. (As a child I didn’t know the painting in my living room was Kinkade, but after he talked about Kinkade so much, years later, I looked at the signature on the painting and wasn’t really surprised.) I liked this art teacher because he didn’t treat us like kids and I could hang out in the art rooms after school and talk about art things with him. He talked a lot of shit about Kinkade, mostly because he thought he was a sell-out. I couldn’t agree more.

Recently I’ve seen other artists who even admit to creating certain types of art simply because it will sell better. I really, really hate that. I don’t think anyone should change or alter what they love to do just because it will sell better to the public. I can understand the necessity of making money, but art to me is a very personal experience, especially to the artist. Art is a reflection of the soul. I find anyone willing to sacrifice their spirituality in order to make money extremely offensive. It’s degrading to the art, the artists, and the people who purchase the art. When the artist isn’t involved in the artwork, to me the art ends up meaning little to nothing. Yes, Kinkade paintings are beautiful, but what kind of effect can they have on anyone else if they mean nothing but financial security to the artist?