This painting, "City Dynamism" by Giacomo Ballia immediately caught my eyes in the abstract section for its beautiful composition. First I didn't really understand the painting at all, and had no idea what it had to do with cities as suggested in its name. I saw flowers and what seemed to be a river in the back. As I digested what was in front of me, I saw foliage, with each of the abstract "pointy" elements to be leaves, and an fern in the middle. Behind it was blocks, I presume buildings, with a river or road running through and turning perpendicularly. Then I saw what appeared to be handrails and a bridge around the top and a fallen log in the front. I believe what the painting is portraying is a foreground of nature, different types of plants and elements belonging to a forest. And this frames what seem to be the contrasting man-made city, with rigid shapes and patterns. So the longer I looked at it, I saw more depth, and meaning.
Looking at the two types of paintings, I noticed an interesting phenomenon. For realistic paintings, I get dragged into a the small details, that even though I had a glance at the composition, I didn't really understand it at first. So through time, as I was able to connect the finer points of the painting, I was able to see the bigger picture and understand what it is depicting more clearly. The abstract painting on the other hand, since I didn't know what was really going on at first, I was drawn to the composition, coloring, and proportions. And as opposed to the realistic painting where the closer I look, the more two dimension it seemed, the abstract painting showed more depth as you focus in. And so to understand the picture you had to focus on smaller elements.
Is this a good/useful/informative piece of content to include in the project? Have your say!
You must login before you can post a comment. .