Just thought I'd share with the class.
I was rereading Eliot's The Wasteland when I was struck by the descriptions in Part II, "A Game of Chess," and their contrast to the mundanity of the dialogue. While the former is extravagant and full of vivid imagery, the latter is simple, almost crass.
So I drew it.
I know Eliot is a modernist, which we identify with abstract art, but since I was planning to form it into a blog post, I felt that putting random splotches of color and calling it "Inspired by The Wasteland" would sidestepping the consideration and thought that usually goes into a post (actually up until this point I didn't have a title. Now I do). Nothing against early 20th century modern art, but I do feel that the effort the viewer puts in to interpreting it usually outweighs the labor of the artist that made it.
This is my interpretation of the poem's text. The composition was purposeful, and each object has some reference to the text. There isn't much in the illustration to interpret, since it is based directly on the words of the poem, but that's left to the viewer to decide. You're welcome to play "hidden pictures," and connect the objects to words their referenced from, as well as use the reference to bring your own interpretation of the line from Eliot's ambiguous and pivotal work.
Also, artistic critique is always appreciated, but not strictly speaking necessary.
http://emmy663.deviantart.com/art/Wasteland-Sketch-453898893
you are incredible Lizzie.
ReplyDeletejust to pick up on your point about modern art. Recently my sister in law sent me this: http://www.sporcle.com/games/bam_thwok/toddler-art-or-modern-art1 which compares modern art and toddler paint splashes. It seems at first glance that the modern art is just paint splashes, but bringing it back to Eliot, there is an intended meaning. However, sometimes what we come up with in our interpretation is not what the artist means. Nevertheless, I'm sure someone short on cash could just throw some stuff together and give it a name and call it modern art, and people would read in some meaning.
I don't have anything in addition to add, but I just wanted to tell you, Lizzie that the sketch is absolutely incredible!! Thank you so much for sharing with us!!
ReplyDeleteI love the way you did this sketch. Eliot's words seem to really creep, slither, and drip down the page, highlighting an expressiveness that plays well with the original. Hints of the Thames and time's rivers are seen in the woman's flowing dress and the drinks' fumes. The fluidity of the picture in general strikes me as similar to Eliot's poem, where the scenes merge, dreamlike, and solid ground is hard to find. Like the man on the right, Eliot's characters emerge on the page and then fade into shadow, like echoes of a thing long since gone.
ReplyDelete