High Museum: Take Two

When I ventured to the High Museum for the second time, to find my piece of art for our project, I found myself looking at the art differently. I couldn't really appreciate the art the same way I did before. I would look at something and just think "there is no way I could write about that" or "I don't know what the author's purpose for that is!" I couldn't just look at something and think "that's neat" like I did last time I went to the High. I was on a mission this time. If I thought something was neat, I then had to ask myself could I write about it? And most of the time the answer was no. I did, however, leave the High Museum with two works of art still lingering in my mind.

These two works of art are on two completely opposite ends of the art spectrum. One piece was a painting by Dali and the other was a walkway in the building. So a highly none functional piece that isn't even lifelike and then a completely functional piece that drew me too it because it was so functional.

In the end, I decided to use the Dali painting because it would be a challenge and something out of the ordinary for me. I think that I was so drawn to the walkway because it was familiar. The Dali painting is far beyond familiar, but I can still understand it, at least I think that I can understand it. I can make an argument for my understanding of it which is that Dali wants the viewer to see that position does matter. Different positions can create different images. If you stand really close to this painting all you see are random abstract paintings. If you stand back a little you can see three faces. If you stand back even further you can see a large tiger. So Dali is making the argument that one's position greatly influences what they see in an image. And their position can be referencing their physical position or mental position in my personal opinion. I want to further explore these topics in my analysis of this painting.