shadows and matisse

I really enjoyed the Livingstone reading for this week. Having all of those images makes what she is saying so much easier to understand, and I find it much more easy to concentrate on than Arnheim. I liked the way she began by saying simply that our default assumption is that the light source is coming from above, and the simple shading examples she gave (the spheres) were fantastic - I kept turning my book upside down over and over. I don't know much about art from before the renaissance, but I could easily see what Livingstone was talking about when comparing the images in the chapter -- earlier artists tried to achieve a wider range of luminanace by adding white to some pigments, and after reading it it kind of makes sense why they looked so choppy and disjointed to me.


I especially enjoyed the Matisse images at the end of the chaper, after reading about the poor reaction of Monet's work it reinvigorated me to see Matisse's bright colors and fascinating exploration. I couldn't help looking up more and more of his portraits.

The part of the Arnheim reading that I found the most interesting was the section on shadow. I typically take them for granted, but they are a huge part of some people life. I am not sure if I agree, however, with the way that he thinks about attached and cast shadows. I agree that attached shadows are an integral part of the object and can be seen as an outgrowth of the object, but it also is the one that some people take the least notice of. And I don't think I agree that cast shadows are always an imposition/interference. Unless I misread it and he is referring only to some types of art? Because I do not think that is true in everyday life, and not in art because there are many types of art that have beautiful cast shadows.