Biography of Willem de Kooning, Abstract Expressionist

Biography of Willem de Kooning, Abstract Expressionist Willem de Kooning (April 24, 1904 - March 19, 1997) was a Dutch-American artist known as a leader of the Abstract Expressionist movement of the 1950s. He was noted for combining the influences of Cubism, Expressionism, and Surrealism into an idiosyncratic style. Fast Facts: Willem de Kooning Born: April 24, 1904, in Rotterdam, NetherlandsDied: March 19, 1997, in East Hampton, New YorkSpouse: Elaine Fried (m. 1943)Artistic Movement: Abstract ExpressionismSelected Works: Woman III (1953), July 4th (1957), Clamdigger (1976)Key Accomplishment: Presidential Medal of Freedom (1964)Interesting Fact: He became a U.S. citizen in 1962Notable Quote: I dont paint to live. I live to paint. Early Life and Career Willem de Kooning was born and raised in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. His parents divorced when he was 3 years old. He left school at age 12 and became an apprentice to commercial artists. For the next eight years, he enrolled in evening classes at the Academy of Fine Arts and Applied Sciences of Rotterdam, which has since been renamed the Willem de Kooning Academie. Henry Bowden / Getty Images When he was 21 years old, de Kooning traveled to America as a stowaway on the British freighter Shelley. Its destination was Buenos Aires, Argentina, but de Kooning left the ship when it docked in Newport News, Virginia. He found his way north toward New York City and temporarily lived at the Dutch Seamens Home in Hoboken, New Jersey. A short time later, in 1927, Willem de Kooning opened his first studio in Manhattan and supported his art with outside employment in commercial art such as store window designs and advertising. In 1928, he joined an artists colony in Woodstock, New York, and met some of the top modernist painters of the era, including Arshile Gorky. Leader of Abstract Expressionism In the mid-1940s, Willem de Kooning began working on a series of black and white abstract paintings because he could not afford the expensive pigments needed for working in color. They were the majority of his first solo show at the Charles Egan Gallery in 1948. By the end of the decade, considered one of Manhattans top rising artists, de Kooning began adding color to his work. Willem De Koonings Untitled XXI (est $25-35m) from the collection of A. Alfred Taubman is displayed as part of the Frieze week exhibition at Sothebys on October 10, 2015 in London, England. Tristan Fewings / Getty Images The painting Woman I, which de Kooning began in 1950, completed in 1952, and exhibited at the Sidney Janis Gallery in 1953, became his breakthrough work. New Yorks Museum of Modern Art purchased the piece which confirmed his reputation. As de Kooning became considered a leader of the abstract expressionist movement, his style was distinctive through the fact that he never wholly abandoned representation by making women one of his most common subjects. A member of staff poses next to paintings by Dutch American artist Willem de Kooning entitled Woman (L), Woman II (C) and Woman as Landscape (R) at the Royal Academy of Arts on September 20, 2016 in London, England. Carl Court / Getty Images Woman III (1953) is celebrated for its depiction of a woman as aggressive and highly erotic. Willem de Kooning painted her as a response to idealized portraits of women in the past. Later observers complained that de Koonings paintings sometimes crossed the border into misogyny. De Kooning had a close personal and professional relationship with Franz Kline. The influence of Klines bold strokes can be seen in much of Willem de Koonings work. Late in the 1950s, de Kooning began work on a series of landscapes executed in his idiosyncratic style. Noted pieces like July 4th (1957) clearly show Klines impact. The influence was not a one-way transaction. During the late 1950s, Kline began adding color to his work perhaps as part of his relationship with de Kooning. Employees pose with Untitled XIX 1982 by Willem De Kooning (estimate $6M - 8M) during a photocall for the Peggy and David Rockefeller art collection at Christies auction house on February 20, 2018 in London, England. Jack Taylor / Getty Images Marriage and Personal Life Willem de Kooning met the young artist Elaine Fried in 1938 and soon took her on as an apprentice. They married in 1943. She became an accomplished abstract expressionist artist in her own right, but her work was often overshadowed by her efforts to promote the work of her husband. They had a stormy marriage with each of them open about having affairs with others. They separated in the late 1950s but never divorced and reunited in 1976, remaining together until Willem de Koonings death in 1997. De Kooning had one child, Lisa, through an affair with Joan Ward after his separation from Elaine. Willem de Kooning with daughter, Lisa. Images Press / Getty Images Later Life and Legacy De Kooning applied his style to the creation of sculptures in the 1970s. Among the most prominent of those is Clamdigger (1976). His late period painting was characterized by bold, brightly-colored abstract work. The designs are simpler than his earlier work. A revelation in the 1990s that de Kooning had suffered from Alzheimers disease for multiple years led some to question his role in the creation of the late-career paintings. Willem de Kooning is remembered for his bold fusion of Cubism, Expressionism, and Surrealism. His work is a bridge between the formal subject concerns of the experiments in abstraction by artists such as Pablo Picasso, and the complete abstraction of an artist like Jackson Pollock. Sources Stevens, Mark, and Annalynn Swan. de Kooning: An American Master. Alfred A. Knopf, 2006.

In your opinion, is Shylock presented as a villain or a victim of the society he lives in Essay Example

In your opinion, is Shylock presented as a villain or a victim of the society he lives in Essay Example In your opinion, is Shylock presented as a villain or a victim of the society he lives in Paper In your opinion, is Shylock presented as a villain or a victim of the society he lives in Paper Essay Topic: Opinion Play In my opinion Shylock has been presented as a victim but at times, he is made a villain because he has been treated so unequally that he has no other option besides applying the bond on Antonio. Society was very different 400 years ago. Shylock was living in the Elizabethan era, where anti-Semitism was very open. The majority of people at that time were Christians who were against Jews and treated them inhumane, because the Christians knew that it is the Jews who were responsible for the murder of Jesus Christ and they are still in the process of completely eliminating Christianity. Shylock was one of the many Jews who were subjected to brutality and insults throughout their lives. Shylock wasnt ever treated compassionately from the start, he wasnt considered as a human and we get to realise that when Shylock (in Act 3 Scene 1, Page 35, Line 54) asks Antonio: I am a Jew. Hath not a Jews eyes, hath not a Jews hands, organs dimensions, senses, affections, passions Antonio has subjected Shylock to insults and inequality all his life, one instance is at the beginning when in Act 1 Scene 3, Shylock reviews what Antonio has said to him: And spit upon my Jewish gabardine You call me a misbeliever, cut-throat dog Hath a dog money, is it possible? In this scene we have the immediate view of a generous money-lending Jew, because Shylock reviews all of the insults he has been subjected to and, still lends him the money. For example in Act1 Scene3, Shylock says: Shall I bend low, and in a bondmans key Fair sir, you spat on me you spurned me such a day, another time you called me a dog; and for these courtesies Ill lend you thus much money Antonio, still hasnt realised his mistake, and is still not grateful to Shylock, Antonio replies with rage: I am as like to call thee so again, to spit on thee again, to spurn on thee too. We feel sympathetic towards him, because he has faced misfortune throughout the play. Lorenzo, who is Antonio and Bassanios friend, eloped with Jessica. Jessica, was Shylocks only hope, he had no other family. Not only did Jessica run away with one of Shylocks enemies, she stole an absurd amount of money from her father. Solanio puts on an impression of Shylock in Act 2 Scene 8 he says: My daughter! O my ducats! O my daughter! Fled with a Christian! O my Christian ducats We might think that Shylock here is more worried about his ducats than his daughter, but on the contrast, we also immediately have the anti-Semitism view because Solanio Salerio are Christians and they arent reliable witnesses because they hate Jews too. They use abusive language like: As the dog Jew They also use words such as: Confused, Strange and Variable, these words are unnatural Elizabethan language. Jessica steals Shylocks dead wifes ring and sells it for a monkey, when Shylock hears about this from Tubal he cries and says he wouldnt sell that ring for a forest of monkeys. Tubal says in Act 3 Scene 1: One of them showed me a ring that he had of your daughter for a monkey Shylock replies: Out upon her, thou torturest me Tubal. It was my turquoise; I had it of Leah when I was a bachelor. I would not given it for a wilderness of moneys. We know how much Shylock is sad because he says torturest which is a very effective word, and we are left with no other option besides feeling sympathy towards him. We then come to know about Antonios shipwreck, which raises tension. Before the court trial begins, we come to know that even the Duke is Anti-Semitic because his words are: Go one and call the Jew into the court Shylock still wants to pursue the bond and the Duke doesnt yet convince him. The reason Shylock gives for pursuing the bond is: If you deny it let the danger light, upon your charter (Line 38). He says that if you dont give me this bond, your law and government systems credibility will go down. Your charter will not mean anything. This is where we realise that Shylock has been forced into becoming a victim because of all the Anti-Semitic pressures faced upon him. At the court scene, Portia arrives as a lawyer in order to save Antonios life. Antonio helped make their wedding possible, so it is payback time. We also know from the beginning that even Portia is Anti-Semitic as she says in the trial scene: Which is the merchant here? And which the Jew? At the court the first thing Portia asks Shylock to do is to be merciful: Then must the Jew be merciful. Shylock replies: My deeds upon my head, I crave the law, the penalty and forfeit of my law Shylock demands that the justice should be fair. Portia tells Shylock that he is right in saying that justice should be served, but Shylock can only a pound of flesh. A pound of flesh, to be by him cut off Portia wanting to defeat Shylock for the last time says: Are there balance here to weigh The flesh Shylock replies with glee, because he realises that all the insults and brutality he has been subjected to will now end in front of all of his enemies he is surrounded by. I have them ready Portia now realising that she has lost this time but not the next, she says: Have by some surgeon Shylock, on your charge, to stop his wounds lest he do bleed to death She says, in order to pursue your bond, you may remove his pound of flesh, but there should be a surgeon to prevent Antonio from bleeding to death. We feel even more sympathetic towards Shylock when he is [Aside] and says: These be the Christian husbands. I have a daughter- Shylock being extremely kind and compassionate to Portia, we begin to realise that Portia should stop discriminating Shylock by calling him a Jew. Shylock replies in these manners: Most rightful judge Most learned judge Portia finally humiliates Shylock in front of all of his enemies he is surrounded by, by saying: Take then thy bond, take thou pound of flesh, But in the cutting it, if thou dost shed One drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods He is told that he cannot spill even a drop of blood whilst taking the flesh out. Shylock couldnt get his initial bond, but still knowing that he is treated unfairly he asks for his principle bond: Shall I not have barely my principal? Without any mercy, Portia denies it again. Thou shalt have nothing but the forfeiture Portia then tells Shylock that he is an alien in Venice and he is not a citizen, therefore he his breaking the law by trying to take the life of a citizen: If it be proved against an alien, He seek the life of any citizen And due to that all of his money will go to Antonio and the Venetian state, also he can be executed on the Dukes will. Shall seize one half his goods, the other half The Duke pardons it and says: I pardon thy life before thou ask it. Antonio says that Shylock can keep the other half of his wealth, but at the same time forcing him into Christianity, and should leave all of his wealth to his treacherous daughter Jessica and Lorenzo. I am content- so he will let me have the other half in use-to render it upon his death unto the gentleman that lately stole his daughter. Two things provided more, that for this favour, he presently become a Christian, The other, that he do record a gift here in the court of all he dies possessed unto his son Lorenzo and his daughter Shylock has been treated inhumane in front of all of his enemies and at the end he is asked my Portia if he is happy. Shylock has no power, had no power, and has no free will and his life ruined forever. As such that Shylock prays for his leave, because he doesnt feel well. I pray you give me leave to go from hence, I am not well. Send the deed after me, and I will sign it At the end in Act 5 all the Christians are cheerful and they celebrate in Belmont. Concluding I would say that Shylock is mainly treated as a victim of the society he lives in. The society he lives in is to be blamed. Anti-Semitism existed 400 years ago and it was a very open issue. In the Elizabethan times Jews were not treated humane because Christian beliefs quote that the Jews killed Jesus Christ. We can also say that Shylock is a victim because he wanted to murder Antonio, but then, wasnt the Duke given the right to execute Shylock just because he wasnt a citizen and was pursuing a bond, which involved murder. We do not tend to realise how badly Shylock is treated, all we notice is how eagerly Shylock wants to murder Antonio. Shylock wants to murder Antonio for many reasons: Shylock wants to avenge Antonio, because it is he who treated him inhumane, it is he who subjected him to brutality and insults throughout his life, It was part of the bond that if Antonio loses his ships a pound of flesh will be promised to Shylock. Antonio over-confidently agreed to the bond, not knowing that over-confidence always makes you lose. At the end, the Christians won, because they were the majority and he was one, he couldnt say anything against the final decision.

Literary theory is an organon of methods. Discuss this statement Essay

Literary theory is an organon of methods. Discuss this statement - Essay Example From this line of thinking, someone can deduce the meaning of synonyms/unethical words, the meaning of homonymous/equivocal, and the meaning of paronymous/denominative words. These facts lead to the divisibility of speech into either simple, or structured with composition1. Only structured forms of speech can be false or true. What is said of a subject can be said to be the description of the subject as a whole. Under normal circumstances, what is said about a subject is always meant to answer the question of exactly what the subject is. What is said to be contained in a subject is always meant to describe the content of the subject. These are things whose existence completely depend on the existence of the subject. What is contained in a subject can also be referred to as inherence. Some things can be predicated of a subject, but do not exist in any subject. For instance, â€Å"man† might be predicated of John or James, but fail to be in any subject. Some things can be in a subject, but cannot be predicated of a subject. In such cases, a certain specific point of grammatical knowledge is in the subject but cannot be predicated of any subject because of its individuality. Some things have the ability to be predicated of a subject and be in a subject. A good example of such a case will be science. Science is in the mind as in a subject while at the same time can be predicated of geometry. There are also things that cannot be in any subject, neither can they be predicated of any subject. The reason as to why they cannot be predicted is that they are individuals. They cannot be in a subject because they are substances2. Organon can also help in the comprehensive, explicit, and formal understanding of the relationship between logic and language. Basic linguistic formscan be classified into prepositions and simple terms, verbs and nouns, negation, the number of simple propositions, on modal propositions, and studies on the excluded