Meret Oppenheim
Final Self Assessment
Rachel Olson
The piece of work I’m choosing to talk about is Méret Oppenheim, Object, 1936. This piece of art is in the Gateways to Art textbook and is on page 73. It’s a fur-covered cup, saucer, and spoon. MOMA, New York. This piece of work took these dishes and covered them in fur. This three-dimensional form could be considered a ready-made because of the fact dishes are everyday objects, or it could be considered surreal. Oppenheim was shooting for creating a surreal object and explained that she took an object that is usually cold and hard, and instead make them soft and furry. By doing this, the idea of sipping from that cup will give an unexpected sensation of fur tickling our lips by contradicting the conscious logical experiences of the viewers. In this case, the relationship between it’s form and actual content or meaning of the piece fit together really nicely. The piece is furry which gives the viewer the feeling of fur on their lips, instead of a regular hard piece. The fact that there is fur on the dishes makes the entire artwork so it’s interesting that something so simple can be such a clever, great piece of art.
Oppenheim was a member of the Surrealist movement of the 1920s along with other artists such as Luis Bünuel, Marcel Duchamp, and Max Ernst. Her large involvement in the movement is likely what brought on the idea of the Object for Oppenheim. The aim of the movement was to "resolve the previously contradictory conditions of dream and reality." It’s related to a theatrical form of cubism. Artists would paint unnerving, illogical scenes, create strange creatures from everyday objects, and they even developed new painting techniques that allowed the unconscious mind to express itself. They relished in the possibilities of chance and spontaneity which explains why you would ever think to cover you dishes with fur. Another piece of work that reminds me of the Object is by Ito Hirotoshi titled Pleasures of Paradox.
Rachel Olson
The piece of work I’m choosing to talk about is Méret Oppenheim, Object, 1936. This piece of art is in the Gateways to Art textbook and is on page 73. It’s a fur-covered cup, saucer, and spoon. MOMA, New York. This piece of work took these dishes and covered them in fur. This three-dimensional form could be considered a ready-made because of the fact dishes are everyday objects, or it could be considered surreal. Oppenheim was shooting for creating a surreal object and explained that she took an object that is usually cold and hard, and instead make them soft and furry. By doing this, the idea of sipping from that cup will give an unexpected sensation of fur tickling our lips by contradicting the conscious logical experiences of the viewers. In this case, the relationship between it’s form and actual content or meaning of the piece fit together really nicely. The piece is furry which gives the viewer the feeling of fur on their lips, instead of a regular hard piece. The fact that there is fur on the dishes makes the entire artwork so it’s interesting that something so simple can be such a clever, great piece of art.
Oppenheim was a member of the Surrealist movement of the 1920s along with other artists such as Luis Bünuel, Marcel Duchamp, and Max Ernst. Her large involvement in the movement is likely what brought on the idea of the Object for Oppenheim. The aim of the movement was to "resolve the previously contradictory conditions of dream and reality." It’s related to a theatrical form of cubism. Artists would paint unnerving, illogical scenes, create strange creatures from everyday objects, and they even developed new painting techniques that allowed the unconscious mind to express itself. They relished in the possibilities of chance and spontaneity which explains why you would ever think to cover you dishes with fur. Another piece of work that reminds me of the Object is by Ito Hirotoshi titled Pleasures of Paradox.