This page has annotations:

1. 1 2017-05-02T09:08:15-07:00 Evan Sarafian 042e10782d9a6d3f0001a4b35abb02f58ad84684 Differing sizes in font Evan Sarafian 1 plain 2017-05-02T09:08:16-07:00 Evan Sarafian 042e10782d9a6d3f0001a4b35abb02f58ad84684
2. 1 2017-05-02T09:08:23-07:00 Evan Sarafian 042e10782d9a6d3f0001a4b35abb02f58ad84684 sideways text Evan Sarafian 1 plain 2017-05-02T09:08:24-07:00 Evan Sarafian 042e10782d9a6d3f0001a4b35abb02f58ad84684

This page is referenced by:

• 1 2017-04-13T11:05:13-07:00 Orientation (Proper) 22 plain 2017-05-15T00:02:55-07:00 How do you see a painting?
  Not all paintings are meant to be viewed with the goal of finding a meaning. This emphasis on ambiguous abstraction was one that was prevalent during the Russian Avant-garde movement, including Kazimir Malevich's Suprematist works of the mid 1900s. However, when presented with a painting, viewers will still often attempt to restructure the painting in terms that are more accessible for them such as images that they may see in the work so they can formulate an interpretation they are comfortable with. Perhaps this is something they can clearly point out, or it may be more difficult for them to articulate, but they at the very least try to garner some kind of interpretation. However, this interpretation is subject to differentiation based upon the orientation of the piece. Oftentimes, a single orientation is considered the "proper" orientation, but this restricts the reader to a limited number of possible interpretations when, in reality, there may be numerous other possibilities. This is especially true in Kazimir Malevich's Suprematist works of the mid 1910s. Upon first glance, the majority of Malevich's Suprematist paintings appear to be an incoherent jumble of shapes and colors, but regardless, a viewer would still be able to look at a piece such as Suprematism - 1915 and come to some kind of conclusion. This conclusion is not complete, however, because the viewer was looking at the painting not the right side up. In fact, it is impossible to do so because there is no single correct orientation. Each turn of the piece changes it and together, these different interpretations paint a complete story, a visual poem. This emphasis on looking past a single orientation allows the viewer to see the painting as an active story that gives a piece of the plot with each vital rotation. After completely exploring these differing orientations, a story comes into focus. This is the only way any of Malevich's pieces such as his self-portrait can be fully enjoyed. Malevich's experimentation with visual poems in the form of paintings can be traced back to the early Russian Futurist poets and their experiments textually altering and manipulating their poems so that they are read differently. Malevich employs similar methods, but he focuses on a completely visual translation without any basis in sounds or text. 
  
  Orientation (Which one)?
  Observing a painting is a fairly simple process in that the steps are to see it and then to observe it, in that order. However, Malevich's Suprematist works redefined the process and even lengthened it. Now, it is see it, observe it, turn it, see it, observe it, repeat twice more, and then observe the entire thing, now with a more complete knowledge of the painting. For some paintings, especially the more simple ones, this may seem not necessary as the viewer may immediately recognize something that they feel doesn't require further elaboration. For instance, look at Suprematist Painting. Rectangle and Circle. It is a fairly obvious work in that the majority of its viewers may immediately recognize the appearance of a person, no manipulation of the artwork necessary. The circle represents the head, the rectangle represents the torso, and together one could draw a conclusion. For example, this could be seen as a purposefully simplistic representation of a person with the intention to highlight how simple people are when stripped of all else but their shape. However, now look at the same painting, but tilted to the right 90 degrees. Now, look at it when it is tilted to the left 90 degrees. These orientations of the same painting present a completely different image that directly affects the portrayal of the original, upright orientation. Looking at these two examples, interpretations will not be as easy or intuitive to find as the human figure. However, looking at the painting tilted to the right, a knife can be seen with a large rectangular blade and a connected hand with an off canvass arm. Furthermore, the painting tilted to the left can appear to be a gun. Both of these interpretations are not necessarily the right ones and most definitely not the only ones, but their violent nature completely change the originally proposed meaning of the first orientation. Now, instead of being a painting about the simplicity of the human form and how we are all a torso and a head, it instead preaches a story of how easily humanity can tilt off balance and turn to violence against each other.
  
  Turn-Per-View
  Suprematist Painting. Rectangle and Circle is a good example of how adjusting the orientation gives more pieces of what first appears to be a simplistic story or available interpretation. The story of this painting is enhanced and revealed as originally incomplete. However, with some paintings, such as Suprematist Composition: Airplane Flying, any interpretation requires much more work as there is ostensibly no figure, or any shape at all. The title suggests that there should be a Sudden Airplane, but upon looking at the piece after flipping it 180 degrees or "upside down", suddenly there is an image of a person that can be seen carrying a stack of boxes. The figure is more abstract in that it is not the shape of a complete person, but only the top half. However, it is more complete than anything that may have been gleaned from the initial orientation offered of the painting. 
  
  Another, and perhaps an even more abstract example, is Malevich's painting Suprematist Painting. Eight Red Rectangles. Looking at this painting, there are many, many possible interpretations and generally everyone will see something unique in their observation. If the two long red rectangles on the left side are seen as lips, the upper block as a nose, and the lower block as a chin, then the smaller rectangles could possibly be interpreted as words escaping from the lips, or perhaps they are blood red bullets and the long skinny rectangles are the barrel of a gun. The point is, there is not a single correct viewing of this painting and the infinite number of ways to view it are doubled when the painting is looked at upside down. Now looking at this orientation of the painting, there are even more possible interpretations that can be taken from the arrangement of these rectangles. Perhaps it is a cruise ship, perhaps it is a cocked gun, or it could possibly even be seen as a hand performing a rude gesture. Regardless of what one sees, if they were presented with the second orientation and told it was the "correct" one, they would not question it because it is, in the end, just as alien of a painting in that orientation as it is in the first one. In fact, in order to prove my point, I introduced the two orientations in the wrong order. The second one is actually the orientation the painting is normally presented in while the first one is the "upside down" view. The ambiguity of this painting and these two orientations highlights how neither one is necessarily "better" or more correct of a way to view the painting than the other. 
  
  Visual poetry when it was just poetry
  Before Kazimir Malevich's Suprematist paintings, Futurist poets in Russia experimented with implementing visual elements into their poetry and making the act of reading more active of a process than simply reading words on a page. They accomplished this through such techniques as altering: the font size, the appearance of the letters themselves, kerning (in typography, the spacing between letters), the material that their books of poetry were made from, and the orientation and direction that the words were printed in. This last technique is the most relevant to our discussion as it shows, similar to Malevich's Suprematist works, a prerequisite task for the reader to change the orientation of the piece they are reading before they may fully appreciate it. For instance, Mayakovsky's book For the Voice includes several examples of text being written sideways and forcing the reader to turn the book to be able to read it. These examples of a singular, proper orientation being disregarded in textual poetry directly relate to the lack of a single orientation in Suprematist paintings and the idea that these paintings are not just a visual piece to view, but are in reality a visual poem expressed purely through images instead of with the textual support of words. 
  
  Closing
  Ultimately, Kazimir Malevich's Suprematist paintings are a medium for storytelling. This is why any concerns of the necessity of a proper orientation must be disregarded when examining a Suprematist painting. Each of these stories employs a different panel of the story depending on how the painting is being viewed. The combination of these four representations into a single, holistic interpreation allows a greater understanding of the work as opposed to the more narrow interpretations that are possible form a viewing limited to a single orientation. Such restrictions cut short the plethora of possible meanings that are opened up to the viewer and give but a portion of what is available.