Art: Woman looking out to Sea- Woman looking out at sea is a beautiful paper-mache model of a woman sitting peacefully on a what seems to be a chair of some sort looking out an imaginary window. This piece has three chief color of orange, yellow, and blue. This piece of art conveys a lot of feelings and emotions. The woman seems to be waiting for some one perhaps a lover or family member.

Her face was sad and perplexed yet calm. I think what Paul Harris is trying to convey here is the sense of hope, longing, or nostalgia. While creating this beautiful art perhaps he was thinking of his wife or a love one. Although simple, I felt that this piece communicate a lot through this plainness. It keeps the viewer guessing allowing his or her imagination and emotions roam to fill in the gap. Another aspect of this work that connotes tranquility is its name.

The word sea has always had a positive connotation. It had always been used synonymously to peacefulness. I consider this piece to be artistic because I feel that I was able to perceive Paul Harris perspective. I was able to see it through his eyes and share the same emotions it supposedly agitates. Ecstasy- The second piece of art that drew me to it the minute I entered the museum was this one. At first I thought it was just another one of those abstract art that makes no sense at all.

However, closer examination of it reveals that it was a lot more than just an arrangement of shapes of different colors. The chief colors used on this oil-on-canvas painting are yellow, orange, and red. All of these are very bright colors that each exudes its own emotions. The woman in the picture was painted red which connote red-hot-passion.

The woman seems to be elated and in a state of ecstasy as she holds a yellow oddly shaped figure that can be interpret as a man. In this picture it is difficult to determine what Hans Hoffman is trying to convey Im not sure if the woman herself is in the state of ecstasy or if the piece of art supposes to conjure up a sense of ecstasy upon its viewer. I felt that the piece is somewhat slightly sexually suggestive. Nonetheless, I couldve interpret this wrongly because the word ecstasy is often used in past literature that I read interchangeably with orgasm. It could be that my definition of ecstasy have been distort by numerous Sigmund Freud's reading that I have incurred in the past and henceforth causing me to interpret this art sexually. There was no profound reason why I considered this piece artistic.

I was simply attracted to it. Maybe the id in me is at work again. Circus Scene Circus Scene by Alexander Calder was one of the simplest pieces of art at the museum. It is simple in that the viewer did not have to use their imagination to see what was being portrayed. It was obvious. The painting was of a circus ring with elephants and other animals doing tricks.

As a child I have always had a predilection for magic and circus tricks therefore this piece of art very much appealed to me. One element of this painting that baffled me when I look at it is the usage of colors. The chief colors used was dark red, brown, and black. These colors have always been known to carry with it a melancholy mood. This was what confused me the most. Arent circuses supposed to be a happy place A place for children A place with colorful balloons, clowns, cute animals This circus ring doesnt have any element of a typical circus.

In fact, it was gloomy and the animals seem to be somewhat ferocious. The reason why I thought this painting was artistic was because I felt that it stirs up a natural curiosity in me. It had esthetic qualities that draw viewers to it. Not Art Although colorful and visual satisfying I felt that the following work should not be considered art in that it conjures no emotions and it seems to be somewhat uniform. Jacksons Pollock oil-on-canvas (which has no name) is a very odd painting in that its not a picture of anything. It was too abstract.

It is just an assemblage of colorful swirls, blots, blemishes, and smears. Together it does not make up anything and provoke no emotion except for confusion. The second work in the museum that I dont consider art is Sam Francis acrylic-on-canvas. This painting too has no name and also a like Jacksons Pollock's work, it made no sense. It doesnt represent anything that is tangible.

When viewing these two work I immediately ask myself is there a hidden, esoteric meaning behind these works Does each suppose to provoke some kind of emotion of its own But I found no answer to these questions. According to John Dewey's definition of art, a work is only artistic if the viewer can perceive what the artist sees while he is creating it. I could not perceive anything therefore too me its inartistic.