The Family Group Analysis Essay
The previous preliminary reports focused on different artist purposes for The Family Group by Charles Umlauf. The first paper was a subjective analysis done through visualization and personal inquiry that believed the sculpture was a call for the divine. However, the second report was a research based analysis the determined the purpose was to depict the “basic unit of the economy” by showing a stereotypical family. This preliminary report will discuss the difference in the artist purposes while questioning the validity of them. Some questions that will be pondered and discussed are: Can an artist explicitly mention a purpose for a piece of art, but not disclose or realize another internal purpose exists? If so, why would the motives of Umlauf
…show more content…
be to create the power struggle between the two purposes?
On the discussion of the purpose explicitly stated by Umlauf, the aspects of the purpose can be examined and challenged. When reading Umlauf’s biographies, all mention the influence of Angeline Umlauf, the wife of Charles, in his work. It can be deduced that his wife played a significant role in the life of Umlauf as well. Family was a large aspect of Charles’s life and therefore had some predestined notions to the importance of that structure in everyday life and the economy.
Although the reasoning and history behind the explicit statement are displayed, the validity behind the implied purpose is equal or more resolute.
According to Kelli McDonald, a reporter known for her insight into Umlauf, mentions one of Charles’s main themes was religion. If Charles was known for his theme of religion then where was the religious appearance in The Family Group? The religion is present in the father-son dynamic. The father holds the son towards the direction of the heavens while the son holds up a religiously charged hand signal of placing the right hand in the sky, palm facing outwards. Furthermore, the direction of his gaze towards the sky signifies he son senses a presence above him. The designing of the sculpture makes it clear the influence is present but, why did Charles not mention the influence of religion in the description of the work? A plausible reason why Umlauf would have to hide his religious influence is due to the secular nature of the University. By placing a work that has definite ties to religion, if mentioned by Charles, would have created controversy and place the sculpture at risk of removal. Although I am not advocating that Umlauf intentionally misled his viewers to the purpose of the sculpture, I am presenting that The Family Group religious influence is apparent, which is not addressed by the artist.
Rather than being at a constant struggle with trying to understand which of the two author purposes from the preliminary reports are
true, this preliminary report makes it clear that both can present. There is a clear power struggle between the two. Although the current roles of each purpose to The Family Group are unknown, the compilation of the preliminary reports and a step back away from the sculpture may reveal a message that is currently hidden.
The observing time of The Family Group by Charles Umlauf was from 2 to 2:45 on November 15th, 2016.
be to create the power struggle between the two purposes?
On the discussion of the purpose explicitly stated by Umlauf, the aspects of the purpose can be examined and challenged. When reading Umlauf’s biographies, all mention the influence of Angeline Umlauf, the wife of Charles, in his work. It can be deduced that his wife played a significant role in the life of Umlauf as well. Family was a large aspect of Charles’s life and therefore had some predestined notions to the importance of that structure in everyday life and the economy.
Although the reasoning and history behind the explicit statement are displayed, the validity behind the implied purpose is equal or more resolute.
According to Kelli McDonald, a reporter known for her insight into Umlauf, mentions one of Charles’s main themes was religion. If Charles was known for his theme of religion then where was the religious appearance in The Family Group? The religion is present in the father-son dynamic. The father holds the son towards the direction of the heavens while the son holds up a religiously charged hand signal of placing the right hand in the sky, palm facing outwards. Furthermore, the direction of his gaze towards the sky signifies he son senses a presence above him. The designing of the sculpture makes it clear the influence is present but, why did Charles not mention the influence of religion in the description of the work? A plausible reason why Umlauf would have to hide his religious influence is due to the secular nature of the University. By placing a work that has definite ties to religion, if mentioned by Charles, would have created controversy and place the sculpture at risk of removal. Although I am not advocating that Umlauf intentionally misled his viewers to the purpose of the sculpture, I am presenting that The Family Group religious influence is apparent, which is not addressed by the artist.
Rather than being at a constant struggle with trying to understand which of the two author purposes from the preliminary reports are
true, this preliminary report makes it clear that both can present. There is a clear power struggle between the two. Although the current roles of each purpose to The Family Group are unknown, the compilation of the preliminary reports and a step back away from the sculpture may reveal a message that is currently hidden.
The observing time of The Family Group by Charles Umlauf was from 2 to 2:45 on November 15th, 2016.