Paul Klee’s Sunset, created in 1930, is an abstract painting, with strong non-objective elements. This particular painting is not about a sunset at all. Music was the inspiration behind this painting. Klee uses color and geometric shapes to create balance. The dots represent movement, and create the illusion of movement as they are used in conjunction with vertical and horizontal lines to do so.
From an iconographic standpoint, the use of different geometric shapes, and how they are placed in the painting are clearly meant to symbolize harmony. Additionally, the use of lines and dots brings upon thoughts of rhythm. On the other hand, from a feminist standpoint, the texture of the painting stands out the most. Between the linear line structures, dots, and use of color, the overall texture of the painting is rough, almost chaotic. The artist experiments with a combination of stillness and movement, so perhaps the semi chaotic mood of the painting was intentional.
As far as my personal interpretation of the painting, I am not a fa. The work of art is bland. The painting is about connecting with music and creating art that is abstract. Even though his work is abstract, his message is that through music, art made from music can be made clear, and is more easily seen because of the music.
If someone else were to look at this painting, they might notice the combination of light and dark colors, in addition to the light and dark spaces in the painting. This evokes an uplifting mood to the otherwise chaotic flow of movement present. This is a positive point for the work. My opinion on the painting however, remains unchanged.
http://www.biography.com/people/paul-klee-9366304#synopsis
http://www.paulklee.net/
http://www.paulklee.net/sunset.jsp
I Like this painting it has a nice geometric look to it. I also agree that it is rather bland it would have been nicer if they had used brighter colors.
I think this is one of the best paintings that I have seen actually. I know it is kind of weird and does not look like it stands for anything but art doesn’t always have to have a meaning. I like it but I wish there was more of a “given purpose” of it. The texture is the first thing I notice while looking at it.
Yes this is one of the best examples I’ve seen so far. In this photo you can see better what the artist was trying to display in his work. Its very different, I would say. I agree with you though, it is very bland and maybe just a little boring but maybe it’s more to it than what we see.
This is a challenging work to analyze due to the non-objective nature of the subject matter. This makes the types of analysis used difficult. The formal analysis is great but I think that the iconographic (while a reasonable attempt) is a stretch. The feminist analysis is something I don’t understand, though? I think you need to look at this section in the lecture again.