Anyone that knows me knows I’m terrible at maths. I always was. So of course I don’t try when faced with some maths or number problem that doesn’t immediately have an obvious answer. Mostly because I don’t want to. I have a very fixed mindset about it. As an educator, I know it. I can tell when everything is just about to shut down in a big old figurative “nope,” when my brain goes into fight or flight mode & chooses “flight” every time.
The problem is, a lot of maths or number we’re taught at school has little or no practical application in every day life & unless I’m sharing a pizza, fractions don’t feature often. I’m still confused about why I have to know how to convert improper fractions to mixed & back again & I’ll cheerfully argue with anyone telling me otherwise. Knowing how to do it doesn’t even give me any satisfaction.
But of course we use numbers, numerals, digits, figures every day, especially for all kinds of measuring. & hey, everyone likes to get paid. I know enough to get by.
Anyway, in keeping with all things number, it wasn’t as easy as I hoped it might be to find art containing numbers. I suppose I was thinking of Johns & Cubism, believing that those would lead me to many others, but even there, the choice was limited. Indeed, letters might have been easier, so I’m noting that for future blogs. Not to worry, I’ve found a group of number pictures & have managed to subvert my own rules here & there.
It’s by no means a perfect ten, in fact, there are a few more images, haha. But that sort of proves my point – numbers not only solve problems, they cause them.
Numbers In Color (1937), Jasper Johns (b. 1930)
& here is the aforementioned genius, Mr Johns. Jasper liked to do what many artists like to do when they have a good idea. He would use the elements or ideas within a piece & use them to make new pieces in new ways. For instance, there is a very nice set of 0-9 digits as well as a work very similar to this one, but in shades of grey.
Number 34 (1949), Jackson Pollock (1912-1956)
Okay, I admit, this looks like a total cheat. It’s easy to think that artists who refuse or don’t wish to name their works frequently use the idea of simply numbering the pieces (see also Cindy Sherman) can’t be bothered. But this is the Art World & the rules are different here. Let’s give Jackson the benefit of the doubt. In a sense, numbering the worksputting the onus entirely on the spectator to find the meaning in the image. In another, if the works are numbered chronologically, it might be seen as a true reflection of passing time or of following an artistic trajectory.
2, Laura Beckman
This is an artist I know little about. She writes a blog (seems familiar…) & says she sometimes uses her art nouveau inspired number series to create cards & gifts for her loved ones’ birthdays. Just giving a little shout out to amateur or hobbyist artists & crafters everywhere. I see you.
I Saw the Figure 5 in Gold (1928), Charles Demuth (1883-1935)
Demuth was inspired to create this painting by the William Carlos Williams poem “The Great Figure” & borrowed two lines as the title. It contains the name Bill after Williams; they were evidently great friends & as such, the work has been described as being a “poster portrait.” As stunning as the overall composition, colour & impact of the painting is, it’s pleasant to think of it being a tribute to a close friendship. Demuth was using a Precisionist approach – a form of Modernism using well-defined lines & frankly MATHS - as well as being influenced by Cubism & Futurism.
Thai Number Nine, Unknown
Another small cheat perhaps, but no-one said which numerical system we were talking about. I happened on this quite by chance & this is often what happens in writing this blog. Once I look for the diversity in the art, I find the diversity in the people & the ideas…
The Persistence of Memory (1931), Salvador Dalí (1904-1989)
Probably the biggest hitter on the list & yet we barely notice the numbers are even there. These clocks have been copied, parodied & borrowed in a wide range of contemporary situations as images in themselves, yet without the numbers the concept of the painting & its title would mean very little.
1 965/1-∞ & Détail 1 987 108 – 2, 010, 495, Roman Opałka (1931-2011)
Opałka’s number images are his life’s work & they are absolutely mind-bending. Where one work’s numbers finish, his next pick up where he left off. By 1972 he had started making the pieces gradually lighter & hoped to create white on white images in his lifetime. I’ve included a couple of examples as the first image is quite difficult to fathom. In the end, Opałka had reached 5 607 249. He didn’t use commas, so neither did I.
Fibonacci numbers in art – The Great Wave off Kanagawa (1831), Hokusai (1760-1849)
There are several instances where Fibonacci seems to feature in art as applied to shape & form. In the era of the internet & memes, many famous artworks are being scanned for the Fibonacci treatment & even a cursory search will show you lots of examples.
Le Bougeoir (1911), George Braque (1882-1963)
This was the sort of thing I was expecting to find lots of. Braque’s little “5” looks as if it’s come from the stamp on a bottle of wine or indeed the back of a painting.
Zero (1968), Erté (1892-1990)
This is one of my favourites on this list. Erté’s style is so distinctive, yet it’s underplayed perhaps because of his occupation as a designer. His work covered many but these days he’s best known for his 2D pieces. I especially like his “Zero” because of its cleverness & Surrealist quality. Some of the other numbers are more recognisably his, featuring the figures in lavish costumes he’s better known for.
On a personal note, one digit I do like is zero. I like to think of it being a concept all of its own, as a vital & unique placemarker. & if I may lapse briefly into stereotypical Scottishness, I particularly like it when it applies to how much one has to pay for something.
No comments:
Post a Comment