The Thinking Eye by Paul Klee was very different than the
first article I read, but I approached the content the same way in both
articles. When I first read through the
article, the whole piece did not really make sense to me until I got to the
end. At the end when it has the
dimensional signs and their definitions that is when everything kind of
clicked. It also really helped me to
decipher the words through the diagrams that were also included. The visual images were especially helpful for
my understanding process. The
descriptions of point, line, plane, and body really helped me to understand the
rest of the article. For example,
thinking of a point has a primordial element, all-pervasive was really helpful
for the rest of the article. I think the
point was the most important aspect of the article because the point is the
beginning of a line and essentially everything is made up of points. Our in-class exercise also showed me the
importance of the point and it showed me that one tiny little dot can make a
beautiful picture when they are put together with other dots.
One aspect
of the article that I did not really understand was when the author referred to
a line or a plane as having tension. For
me, I do not understand how a line can have tension or how tension between line
and line results in a plane. I really
liked that throughout the article there were diagrams of how lines work
together to create certain shapes or other objects. One diagram I especially liked showed how
linear movement displaced could product the effect of a black box. I had never really thought about how drawing
overall is just a bunch of lines put together to make shapes.
This article helped me to break down the
logistics of art in general and showed me the importance of lines and points. The title of the article also helped me to
really think in terms of more than just what my eye is seeing. The phrase “the thinking eye” I felt was very
appropriate for this article because you could have just seen the diagrams as a
bunch of lines put together, but if you really thought about it you could get a
lot more out of the article.
The
beginning of the article was especially confusing to me when the author was
trying to describe the concept of artistic creation. One line that I did not really understand but
wanted to understand was “It is the study of form, but emphasizes the paths to
form rather than the form itself.” An
aspect of the article that I agreed with was when it said “The power of creativity
cannot be named. It remains mysterious to the end.” I completely agree with this statement and I
have always thought of art as a mystery to me.
I do not think there is one definition or way of expressing creativity,
I feel as if everyone has their own way of being creative and it cannot be
explained or named. One last thought
that I had in regards to this article was that the diagrams helped me to see a
line as not only straight. Many of the
diagrams had curved lines which created a picture and it helped to remind me to
not always think in such a linear manner.
