 |
| Meret Oppenheim. Object (Le Dejuener en Fourrure). 1936. Fur covered cup 4 3/8" diameter; saucer 9 1/8" diameter; spoon 8" long; overall height 2 7/8" |
In 1936, a woman named Meret Oppenheim created a surrealistic piece of art called Object. I have chosen Oppenheim’s piece this week because we will be creating an artwork focused on texture. There are two kinds of texture: Actual textures are the kind that can be felt by touching, and Implied textures are those that look like they can be felt by touching. Your task this week is to (1) describe the textural experience you might recieve from Oppenheim’s Object, (2) express the meaning of this piece, (3) explain how the texture of this or another artwork adds to or detracts from the artwork, and/or (4) explain what the art style surrealism is and how Object fits into that style.
Source:Frank, P. (2009). Preble's Artforms: An Introductin to the Visual Arts. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Prentice Hall.
It is more of a soft, and furry texture. It seems like she was trying to make it out of fur.
ReplyDeleteIt is based on what Picasso said, "Everything can be covered nin fur." I think she was trying to prove that his statement was true and that she as well could create something with texture.
It kind of does both, it adds texture and a feel to the work of art. IT also distracts from maybe her orignal meaning for the piece.
Surrealism in art was a movement that made artist hunt for a sense of expression that was unconcious. It showed exactly what they were meaning for people to see.
Art We Love. Meret Oppenheim Biography. 2008-2010. http://artwelove.com/artist/-id/a0155919
HuntFor. Surrealism Art. 1999-2007. http://www.huntfor.com/arthistory/C20th/surrealism.htm
The texture seems to look soft and hairy. It looks like deer hide. I think the meaning of this peiece was to show people that art doesnt just have to be painted or colored but it can be covered wit hthings to give it a different texture and look. I think the texture of this object adds a lot to it. It there wasn't fur on it, it would just be a regular glass and bowl and spoon. She added character. Art surrealism was known for the visual artwork and this women did exactly that.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lindsey, if it didn't have the fur to add texture, it would just be a plain old cup and spoon.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that she did out surrealism in her art piece. It added charactor and added visual affects.
Its a soft furry smooth texture probably from deer or a rabit. This piece shows that you can use anything to make stuff and that it doesn't have to be a painnting or a drawing. It can be made of anything.Well also without the fur and other things that the art is made of.It'd just be a normal plate, glass bowl, and a spoon.The style also looks like old day styles and she did add a lot of character and looks like a lot of hard work
ReplyDeleteit's look soft and comfortable by fur.
ReplyDeleteshe could create something with texture.
it don't painting or drawing but it's art.
It is soft and furry like it could be the fur of a deer. It shows that you can make art out of anything. It just looks like it would feel just like a deer would. It looks like pioneers would use it or indians.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.answers.com/topic/m-ret-oppenheim
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fantasyarts.net/oppen.html
1. I believe the textural experience would be an Actual texture of fur that you could feel.
2. I beleive the meaning of this piece would be to prove to Picasso that what he said about fur is true. I also believe it is very influencial. It shows that any shape can be given any texture and still be that shape, but not look anything like what you would expect from the texture.
3.I think that the texture takes away from the shape of the cup spoon and plate because a person would think that it should be shaped like an animal.
4.I think surrealism is when a piece is based on something real but also implies a fantasy that could relate to the real life situation. Correct me if I'm wrong some one because I would like to create surrealism. I think that it woould be fun to put real life and my imagination together!
The art looks soft and people want to touch it to see what kind of fur it is. It shows art isn't just paint on paper. I think it shows people used animals for supplies and food. If they didnt use the fur on the art it would be boring and a plate we eat off.
ReplyDeleteThat is fur on there I'm pretty sure.If I felt it, it would feel soft most likely and like rough strings. I think the meaning of this piece is to show that not only mammals can have fur. Everything can have fur. I don't see how the fur has anything to do with bowls. Also, i think that surrealism is taking something and bringing it to life. But even though it's brought to life, it's not breathing and isn't really alive!
ReplyDelete1) you would experience a disgusting fuzzy testure from the "object" 2)The meaning of this piece is to make people feel the texture and think about something you never think about, like drinking out of a fuzzy cup. 3)I think texture makes the artwork, especially in this piece, it would be just a boring picture of a teacup without the texture. 4) The goal of surrealism is to produce unconscious thoughts, one the viewer might not think about on his own. "Object" fits into that style because it is unusual and makes the viewer think about things that he/she would not have thought about on their own.
ReplyDeleteMiss Oppenheim was a German artist, and she became famous in 1936 with her “Object”.
ReplyDeleteShe decided to be an artist in 1931, like her grandma. Therefore she traveled with her aunt to Paris and met a couple of other artists. But she had not that much money, so she took a job as a designer for clothes. And my guess is that this was the main cause for her art work “Object”, because if you are a designer you have to think about the shape and the style of you piece of clothing, but you also have to think about the material what it should be made of. Maybe she just connected her love of clothes and her new skills about textures.
The texture on this café set seems to be something like a fur, very soft and fleecy.
But I’m not sure what it meaning is. The only thing that I could think of is, that she covered the cup and the spoon with pelt to remember us that we eat and drink always something from animals (meet, milk…)
And if it’s think, then this piece fits very well into the category surrealism (that was a movement, it is “unreal and dreamlike, and explore the depths of the unconscious and to expand the limited field of experience by the human logic of the fantastic and absurd” or in easier words just another (world)view) , because her way she express is not ordinary.
And I agree with ds3112"It shows art isn't just paint on paper"
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrealismus
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meret_Oppenheim
1. The Object looks coarse and hairy
ReplyDelete2. Meret and Picasso were talking and having coffee. He told her that he liked her bracelet which was covered in fur and thought anything could be covered in fur. She asked "Could even this coffe cup becovered in fur?" Picaso thought that it would look good so she made this pieve of art.
3. The texture of this piece is what makes it great. Without the texture the piece would be a plain old cup.
I like Cutter's definition of surealism. It's right on.
http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=80997
ReplyDeleteThe texture looks soft, furry, and warm. According to Oppenheim, the piece was only meant to express the contrast of material textures while others feel it symbolises sexuality. This shows that really the sybolism of the art is in the viewer. Surrealism is art that shows things that would never happen in real life. This piece fits into the stye of surruealism because you would never normally see a teacup covered in fur in real life.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lisa. The fur makes the piece what it is. Without it it would just be a cup.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.suite101.com/content/meret-oppenheim-and-breakfast-in-fur---surrealism-for-breakfast-a232057
Ry,
ReplyDeleteHow do you think that the fur "distracts" from Oppenheim's meaning of the piece?
Lindsay,
ReplyDeleteHow does the fur add "character" to the artwork? What is character? Also, don't forget that you need to include a source for your information and post a response to receive full credit.
Chase,
ReplyDeleteIf you can make art out of anything, would the work still be art without the fur? Also, you need to use a spell checker before submitting, add at least one response to a peer, and remember to cite one source for your information in order to receive full credit.
The textural experience you might receive from Oppenheim’s Object would probably be soft and of course furry. The fur is of a Chinese gazelle.
ReplyDeleteThe meaning of this piece was to make something out of art that is not just painting and drawing. Picasso said, “One can cover anything with fur.” This is where she came up with the idea of making a piece of art with fur.
It adds detail to the artwork because you can just imagine how that would feel to use without even having to touch it.
I agree with Cutter on what surrealism is. A piece of art that is based on something real, but also implies a fantasy that could relate to the real life situation.
http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=80997
she was using furry texture. She was having coffe with picasso and Dora Marr, he liked her fur covered bracelet,so she got the idea. The texture is genious it gets you thinking about what it would feel like in your mouth. Her definition of surrelism is what its supposed to be.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=80997
(1) the texture you might feel is soft and a bit of stringy (2)the feeling i get from this is astonishing from how she made art work out of a living thing. (3) The texure of this adds to the cup it makes you think how did she come up with the thought to do this
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sapdesignguild.org/editions/edition6/ms_visual_des2.asp
1)This peice of art is weird to me but in a good way because the texture is an implied texture. I makes you feel like its an animal or something really hairy.2)The meaning of this peice was to show surrealism, they did this by proving that you can put fur on anything. So for this art work they tried putting fur on a tea cup, plate and spoon just to show they could do it.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.chilloutpoint.com/art_and_design/all-you-need-is-one-fur-covered-object-meret-oppenheim.html
3)I think it adds to the art work. With out the implied texture it wouldn't really be that great of a piece, it'd just be a cup, a spoon, and a plate. But once you at the texture its something completely different. 4)Surrealism is when you have a piece of art and you make it something that you don't purposely go out of your way to see. Its just in open view.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.surrealism.org/
The implied texture of this piece is obviously hairy and probably coarse. I wouldn't want to use this table ware! This piece, however, is very meaningful because it takes an everday object and takes it from an ordinary cup and saucer to a work of art. The texture of this piece adds alot to it. It creates interest and makes it real. Surrealism is creating art from works of the subconscious. This piece is surrealism because the inspiration for it came from the artist's conversation with someone.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.suite101.com/content/meret-oppenheim-and-breakfast-in-fur---surrealism-for-breakfast-a232057
http://www.ask.com/web?q=dictionary%3A+surrealism&content=ahdict%7C47179&o=0&l=dir
I agree with Chase. Art can be made out of anything. The artist used plain everyday things and created an interesting piece of art. I also like Lisa's comment about how the texture makes the piece of art in this piece. That is very true.
ReplyDeleteShe was using a soft texture and it is out of fur.
ReplyDeleteIt describes what Picasso said, "Everything can be convered nin fur."
His statement was right and she created something with texture.
Finally it's work of art with texture.
http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=80997
I like this work of art because when you look at it, it has a different meanging to it then other works of art do. The fur really accents the shape and texture of it and it shows all different sorts of feelings when it was made.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI like chases comment about how art can be made out of anything. Its so true. No matter what kind of art you create theres always a meaning to it. There could be a painting of a bunch of scribbles and it could mean some kind of feeling that artist was feeling and people would still fall in love with it.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to have been made from the fur of a Chinese Gazelle so I'm sure it would feel soft, but also coarse at the same time. This piece of art wouldn't be as unusual and alluring if it was just a simple saucer. She wanted to make a statement and go out of the box after picasso said something about how anything could be covered in fur, and she replied with "Even this cup and saucer." I don't beleive the fur detracts from the artwork at all, if anything it made it better and more interesting. Surrealism was a "movement that brought together artists, thinkers and researchers in hunt of sense of expression of the unconscious." It was like a turning point where they decided that art can also be poetic and have different meanings behind it. "Object" is a part of surrealism. I'm sure when her artwork was presented it made others think about what her motive was and how it was to be represented.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=80997
http://www.huntfor.com/arthistory/C20th/surrealism.htm