Brandy Rains's Comment Archive

  1. I think all three artists had incredible stories to tell, but I especially liked Eichenberg’s. I think I’m not the only one who had a strange fascination with the time between the two World Wars. Eichenberg claimed to have become a pacifist after seeing all the destruction caused by World War I. I think that is really evident in his work. The prints depicted in the journal were focused on divine elements, and were almost mocking the destructive culture surrounding them.
    What I liked most about Eichenberg was that he portrayed the destruction without blatantly showing it, if that makes sense. He didn’t show the morbidity of World War I or the Great Depression literally, but instead commented on it ironically through showing animals and other creatures mixed with divine saints. I think when artists want to show morbidity or political commentary they are too quick to jump to the negative instead of the positive, and I like Eichenberg’s thinking and the way he portrayed his message.

  2. I agree with everyone else so far. And also, I seem to be unoriginal, because everything I thought to say was already said by other people. Oops.

    I don’t think printmaking is dead, I just think that it can be considered a root of other modern arts. For example, there are a lot of typographical elements involved in printmaking. Figuring out where to place type and how to place it seems like a very important part of making a successful print. That being said, typography and graphic design can sort of be seen as a fruit produced by printmaking…if that makes any sense.

    Just because something is changing and has influenced more modern art doesn’t mean it is dead. It may be on the back burner compared to modern art, but I certainly don’t think it is completely ignored.