A letter to Iian
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
As I have said, I appreciate your devotion to representational, skillful art.
Sure there is room for one, especially in religious market.
But to define that as only art, or even oly good art, is not wise.
You blind your vision of much seeworthy.
I can't afford the time to comment your long postings, I have to write this
offline, quoting only by memory if needed.
Your logic is sloppy. When making diagnosis, you want to separate what is,
from what isn't. In addition to that, you must consider the 'false positive'
cases. as well as
'false negatives'. When I pointed out that your criteria sets legal contracts,
'false positives'
above Shakespeare, you hasted to patch that artistic intention overrides your
criteria..
Your considerations about photography are strange, too. I admit that some of
my best photographs you may justly classify as found objects, happy
incidents. If I follow your line of thought, however, that the amount of
effort is what counts, then I must conclude that we poor art students, who
fight hours and days for decent rendering, make better art than Rubens, who
needed only apparently random splashes of color to create an illusion of
intricate juvelry.
I liked your theory of illusionism, even if it excludes the rational observer.
Your "natural disbelief" means exactly that we slip the control, let the story
carry us. It is good theory but not comprehensive.
Why you have to excommunicate the moderns. Who cares if Pollock makes art or
not. Ignore him. * * * So much about theory. You asked to name an artist that
deliberately gives up "skill" for artistic intention. First look at Edward
Munch's litographies. Please point out if you can find a single mistake or
clumsy detail in "The Lady with a Brooch". If you can't find a copy, take my
word, Munch could and did draw.
Then look at his oil painting "The Scream". (for the record, I do not like
this particular piece) The man covering his ears, trying in vain to escape
the unbearable horror of a distant scream. Isn't that feeling of horror the
artistic intention.
The hands are drawn like flippers, if I may borrow your words. Make a copy of
it but add fingers and fingernails. In the background the beautiful fjord
landscape in sunset is painted distorted, with ugly, dissonant false colours.
If you then render it truthfully, in all its beaty, what does it add to the
feeling of horror. For me this little thought experiment shows that
naturalism often distracts our attention to the superficial.
As a secind example I take William Blake's "A negro hang from his ribs".
Technically brilliant engraving. All racial and propably tribal features are
reproduced.
I have studied much of anatomy from it. The subject is alive, I can tell.
It leaves me, however, clinically cold. ( a subjective rational observation)
I have it really difficult to feel empathy, to see any trace of
tragedy, pain, horror or injustice.
You stated that representational art includes all the elements of abstract art
PLUS something more. My question is, when does this more enchance
the strngth of artistic expression.
Take for me, Iian, a Bourgeau from renaissance cafe
and tell me what you see in it. I might understand.
- lauri
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Iian Neill
> As I have said, I appreciate your devotion to representational, skillful art.
> Sure there is room for one, especially in religious market.
Representationalism is applicable to all kinds of subject matter, whether it
happens to be religious or not. In any case, thank you for an intesting letter. I
shall set about responding to some of the issues you raised.
> I can't afford the time to comment your long postings, I have to write this
> offline, quoting only by memory if needed.
>
> Your logic is sloppy. When making diagnosis, you want to separate what is,
> from what isn't. In addition to that, you must consider the 'false positive'
> cases. as well as 'false negatives'. When I pointed out that your criteria sets
> legal contracts,
> 'false positives' above Shakespeare, you hasted to patch that artistic intention
> overrides your
> criteria..
I think you will find that the example I gave concerning Shakespeare and a legal
contract was by no means inconsistent with what I had said previously. Indeed, I
had hinted at this when considering the question of why one would wish to attempt
an objective analysis of art-work in the first place: - the point of my theory is
to lend some stability and credibility to the whole idea of criticism; if it is
our intention to arrive at some objective truth in regards to making statements
about art, it follows logically that one must try and exclude all that which is
subjective and incapabable of independent, rational confirmation (or denial) and
instead aim for a system founded upon easily observable facts. In any case, when I
said that Shakespeare and legal contracts could not be judged in the same way I
was acting in accordance with my theory, which states that one must consider the
intentions of the artist (ie., the Ideal he wishes to express) in relation to the
finished product, the work of art itself. Now, if we consider the case of the
legal contract, it is easy to observe that the intention behind its creation is an
entirely different one from that of a Shakespearean play - and so the use of
poetic and/or dramatic language would be as inappropriate in a legal contract as
the use of very dry legalistic terms would be in a drama. Both works have
different intentions. Just as a building and a chair have different intentions,
and so must be judged differently according to these intentions, so should we also
judge Shakespeare differently from a legal contract. Or, for that matter, any art
work from any other art work - if the purpose of one painting is to evoke in
another the artist's feeling of sadness and horror at the death of Jesus Christ,
then it would be inappropriate (and quite useless, not to mention misleading) to
adjudge the work a failure because it did not summon up feelings of jubilation and
merriment; the Crucifixion painting would not be a failure because it failed to
make us laugh or smile - in fact, considering the intention of the artist in
painting it, it would be a most bizarre thing indeed were the spectacle of Christ
bleeding to death on a cross be a matter for laughter; so it is that we, as
critics, must try and fathom the intention of the artist when creating the work of
art. If no intention can be rationally gathered from the work, and if the artist's
stated intention cannot be shown to objectively conform to the results (ie., the
painting) then we - as rational critics - have nothing to comment upon; in short,
we cannot call the object *art* as we cannot confirm or deny that the artist has
achieved their intentions.
Now, it may turn out that for some reason that this object is somehow a work
of art - but it is not the place of the rational critic to call it such unless he
can show through objective facts that this is indeed so.
> Your considerations about photography are strange, too. I admit that some of
> my best photographs you may justly classify as found objects, happy
> incidents. If I follow your line of thought, however, that the amount of
> effort is what counts, then I must conclude that we poor art students, who
> fight hours and days for decent rendering, make better art than Rubens, who
> needed only apparently random splashes of color to create an illusion of
> intricate juvelry.
The amount of effort only counts insofar as it affects the result. Otherwise, a
painting that might take an amateur a year to finish (and which is quite awful)
would be adjudged superior to a work which might have taken Rubens or Ingres only
a month to finish. Time is not so important here as the actual result. When I
claimed unaltered photography not to be art I wasn't speaking so much about
whether the final result is beautiful, harmonious or even comprehensible and
meaningful - I was talking about intellectual property rights. If you handed in an
essay you snatched off a friend, from a book or the internet, and signed your name
at the bottom, could one really say that you had created that essay? Of course
not! All one has done in this case is sign one's name at the bottom. The same
applies to photography in regards to how much the artist alters the raw reality of
the photograph and imposes his own intention upon it. If I walk out into Nature
and take a photo of the mountains, and no more than this is done to the picture,
then I have not created a work of art - Nature has created the "work of art". And
since art is only the province of the sentient being, it cannot be said that an
inanimate object is an artist. And beyond this, to claim that this photo you took
is a work of art - is a creation of the human mind - is to assert a falsehood; for
did you create the patterns of light on the film? - did you create the mountains,
the clouds, the air, and so forth? All one merely did here is stand in the right
spot, point the camera in the right direction and wait for the right moment. Is
that enough to accounted art? Whether or not it is (and it is my view that it is
not, and this shall be taken up later) one still cannot demonstrate that *you*
have the intellectual right to the image. You did not create it! - you merely took
the photo. The situation changes in proportion to how much control you have over
the process - if you have the capacity to alter any part of the photo at will so
as to impose your own artistic intention upon it, then you are taking part in an
artistic activity, at least from the point of view of one's right to intellctual
property.
> I liked your theory of illusionism, even if it excludes the rational observer.
> Your "natural disbelief" means exactly that we slip the control, let the story
> carry us. It is good theory but not comprehensive.
True, that part of the theory needs some fleshing out. Thank you for acknowledging
its good points, though.
> Why you have to excommunicate the moderns. Who cares if Pollock makes art or
> not. Ignore him. * * *
I do not object to particular artists so much as the thinking that they embody in
their work.
> So much about theory. You asked to name an artist that
> deliberately gives up "skill" for artistic intention. First look at Edward
> Munch's litographies. Please point out if you can find a single mistake or
> clumsy detail in "The Lady with a Brooch". If you can't find a copy, take my
> word, Munch could and did draw.
I am not sure if I have seen this particular work by Munch, but I am willing to
take your word on this. I have seen a few of his works which lend support to the
idea that he might have been able to draw well at some stage. I can't say more
than that until I see the lithograph you refer to.
> Then look at his oil painting "The Scream". (for the record, I do not like
> this particular piece) The man covering his ears, trying in vain to escape
> the unbearable horror of a distant scream. Isn't that feeling of horror the
> artistic intention.
There is certainly something very discordant about "The Scream", about its
clashing colour (dis-)harmonies, alien-featured protagonist, et cetera. I cannot
say that the work ever evoked a feeling of horror within me, such as Breughel's
painting, "The Triumph of Death", did - it is true to say that the painting evokes
discordance, as it certainly does. Whether the rather crude drawing of a person
clasping hands to face in MacCauley Culkin-fashion (ala "Home Alone") can summon
anything more than a kind of curious disgust at the artist's ineptitude with
colour ... well, we can at least agree that it is a work of art! My theory does
not deny that much.
> The hands are drawn like flippers, if I may borrow your words. Make a copy of
> it but add fingers and fingernails. In the background the beautiful fjord
> landscape in sunset is painted distorted, with ugly, dissonant false colours.
> If you then render it truthfully, in all its beaty, what does it add to the
> feeling of horror. For me this little thought experiment shows that
> naturalism often distracts our attention to the superficial.
It seems likely - as you say - that to render that particular scene in life-like
colours and in that exact setting would not conjur up an atmosphere of horror and
desolation; but then I would recommend the artist choose a different scene more
fitting for evoking horror and isolation, or perhaps a time of day, type of
climate, weather and so forth that would be suitable for communicating these
feelings of horror and islation which are supposed to be in the work.
> As a secind example I take William Blake's "A negro hang from his ribs".
> Technically brilliant engraving. All racial and propably tribal features are
> reproduced. I have studied much of anatomy from it. The subject is alive, I can
> tell.
> It leaves me, however, clinically cold. ( a subjective rational observation)
> I have it really difficult to feel empathy, to see any trace of
> tragedy, pain, horror or injustice.
Technical competence is merely the start for great art - it is not enough in
itself, as you have observed. Just because you can draw well, it doesn't mean that
you will become a good artist. But if you have no drawing skills, your artistic
expression will always be confined by incompetence - and one loses one's chance to
communicate the intention powerfully and clearly. So it may have been that Blake
had the technical equipment, but not the particular type of flair that work
needed; so we would probably judge that engraving to be a failure, as it did not
fulfill its artistic intention. It doesn't mean that it is not a fine piece of
drawing in itself - only that it failed to achieve the artist's aims.
> You stated that representational art includes all the elements of abstract art
> PLUS something more. My question is, when does this more enhance
> the strength of artistic expression.
If you look at the most admired paintings of the Old Masters - and indeed of
almost all representational art - you will find that the abstact elements are very
strong. We talk about them in terms of composition, chiaroscuro, colour harmony,
"symphonic resonance", rhythms, and so on - the old artists used all of these
abstract elements to guide the shapes of their pictures, the areas where the
representational forms were included. They could have just painted light and dark
patches, contrasting colours and so on, without any references to reality, but
they knew that to do this meant the purpose of art (the communication of the
Ideal) would not be accomplished - the artist's inner state (his Idea) would
remain locked in a state of chaos, a confused mass of disassociated images,
colours, and lines which had affected no more than the sensual-perceptions of his
audience, and no deeper into their consciousness. That is quite fine if that is
all you wish to do - and generally, we call such work craft. Thus the beautiful
and skilfull architectural ornamentation in (for example) the Alhambra palace is
not meant to convey to us a precise artistic concept (the precise Idea), rather a
vague sensation of rhythmic complexity and harmonious order rising from this
complexity, rather like a fugue in Baroque music. But can one actually read
anything more into the Alhambra palace's architectural ornamentation, without
referring to extra-artistic commentary? One can not. There are no realistic forms
contained within this abstract patterns to convey any precise artistic notion -
and that's fine, because the work in the palace does not aspire to be art in the
same way that the Sistine Chapel Ceiling does. The Alhambra palace ornamentation
(and any abstract, non-representational work) is incapable of projecting any
precise artistic intention and so must be considered more craft-like than
art-like.
> Take for me, Iian, a Bourgeau from renaissance cafe
> and tell me what you see in it. I might understand.
One could start with the very first picture on the first page: "Cupid and Psyche".
Let us look at this piece carefully - what do we see? A young woman is being
lifted from a dark, misty world and into the glories of some heaven-like
firmament. She is in the arms of a supernatural being who looks resolutely
upwards, his gaze firm and purposeful. Her eyes, on the other hand, are closed and
her whole expression is one of ecstatic languor - she is being transported out of
the realm of our world and into some blissful existence - note the contrast of the
dark, rugged landscape and the glorious clouds, sky and so on. The whole painting
conveys this sensation of rising out of darkness and into light - the colour
harmonies of the clothing are chosen so as to be deliberately serene - and if one
knows about Aphrodite, one will notice that purple is her colour - and she is the
Goddess of love. I will grant you that this little fact does assume a certain
knowledge of mythology, but it isn't important to know that at all - the very
prescence of a winged male lifting a young girl skywards should be enough to tell
us the basic theme of the painting.
Incidentally, all of the elements in the painting are concretized in reality -
Bouguereau could have easily left it at a sketch stage, with no recongizable
landscape, boy, girl, or clouds - and we would still have admired the abstract
beauty of his composition, of the rising of light from the darkness. But because
Bouguereau anchored his intention so strongly in realism we find ourselves
suspending our natural disbelief, we find ourselves being drawn into this reality
- the (winged) boy and girl look so real that we can almost touch them, yet the
artist has done much more than merely cut and paste a scene from a photo. He has
transformed reality with all of its imperfections into a tableau of absolute
Beauty - he has culled all that is ugly and deformed and has left us with the
essence of Beauty itself, and he has clothed this essence in forms that suspend
our natural disbelief so effectively that we find ourselves overwhelmed by his
artistic intention, so that his Ideal leaps from him (Bouguereau) and infects us,
the audience, the spectators.
There are many other paintings by Bouguereau that can be analyzed in this way, if
you so wish.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
________________________________________________________________________
If you are interested in the Old Masters, and 19th century art
in particular, feel free to visit my new archive, THE RENAISSANCE CAFÉ:
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/galliano/293/index.html
My personal home-page (with my student art work) can be found here:
http://student.uq.edu.au/~s367558/index.html