Subject matter & content
CROCUSDES
>One does not necessarily need a title or even artistic commentary to determine
>what a painting is about - what, in short, is its subject matter. The subject
matter >of a painting is what is contained within the painting itself.
(snip....continued below)
Well Iian, I've been avoiding dealing with this issue and your approach for a
while now so perhaps it's time for me to try and confront it. The above
statement is not a problem for me..... what follows is.
>(snip....continued from above) If the subject is objectively unalyzable, then
one >can not say whether the artist has achieved their aims, because one has
>nothing to compare the effects of the painting against the impulse which
>motivated its creation.
In several references to subject matter, you seem to imply that subject is a
tangible idea that can be measured against commonly accepted concepts. Now
that sounds very rational to me, however, I vigorously disagree with this
approach. It's going to take a while to see if I can work through this because
my reaction is essentially instinctive and not intellectual.
I consider subject matter to be content itself and not the external devices
pointing to the idea. In other words, references within a work are not
necessarily derivatives of the visual world that we can physically experience
but can be as abstract as an idea alone. Now that in itself isn't so novel but
does become a bit convoluted when we take that premise and try to apply it
legitimately to a work of art. I will be the first to admit that it may be
impossible to support this view in terms of objective reasoning but I'd like to
try and work through the idea anyway.
The first and perhaps the most essential barrier to cross is what each of us
accepts as a valid work of art before we can even say that one idea or another
is applicable. So far there seems to be a limit to what is considered a valid
product from the act of artmaking. Nevertheless I'll move ahead and state my
position anyway.
I think there are no limits or boundries on what may constitute a valid work of
art. I've mentioned it before and will repeat that I consider artmaking to be
the act itself and not the product. As an observer, we experience the act
through the finished product whatever that turns out to be and we do evaluate
the effort through that product. To dismiss an abstract painting for instance,
because it fails to convey intent, doesn't invalidate the act, only the success
or failure of communication or expression. For all I know we may simply get
stuck and spin our wheels over this issue but what the hell.
Back to subject of matter and content, I might suggest that the obvious subject
matter in a landscape painting for instance, might be something like an
artist's concern or interest in the forces itself that thrust the land shape
into a particular configuration. Two approaches to this same interest can be
taken.
One expresses the idea through an interpretation of the "scene" itself,
interjecting his own exaggerations to highlight his intent (maybe like Cezanne
for instance). Another artist may use a flat color approach and define this
same "scene" as a series of dynamic interplay between shape and color alone
(maybe like Milton Avery for instance). The "essential subject" can result in
a successful expression in an aesthetic way to define the content. Alright,
that's not a big deal idea either. It's when we might not have the right clues
in our mind that we may judge one work to succeed in terms of intent and
expression and the other fail.
However, we experience the world through different levels of our mind and
generally speaking, we intellectually accept the physical rendering to be a
more accurate representation of meaning. That one sided view ignores the other
level of our response to real world experience and that response can be on an
emotional level.
Emotion is an abstract response we have to an event. We find it difficult to
verbally explain so our understanding exists on an intuitive level. If a work
can speak more forcefully on an emotional level and does so in a way that our
understanding is emotional then we can take into account another doorway into
understanding visual language. We can judge a work that is expressed in an
abstract way if we filter our reading through our intuitive senses rather than
the intellect.
It's so much easier to make the comparison between emotion and music than it is
with visual responses but there are similarities. I always considered color to
be more closely aligned with sound than any other feature of a visual work
simply because our reaction to color is as unique as the individual responding
to it. Same with sound. Since color, among other things, is so emotionally
charged then this is one of the reasons I would suggest that an abstract idea,
which may be conveyed mostly through the use of color, can be a more valid
expression than otherwise. Now this example probably applies best to singular
or straightforward ideas rather than complex ones. The value attributed to the
numerical paucity contained within the idea of one approach is not invalidated
by the complexity of another.
Still, the issue of quality or success pertaining to the use and expression of
an abstract idea as subject in a work of art isn't being addressed here but
perhaps at a later time.
Chris Ray - sculptor
http://members.aol.com/crocusdes
setai
CROCUSDES wrote in message <19981022132825...@ng-fa2.aol.com>...
>I consider subject matter to be content itself and not the external devices
>pointing to the idea. In other words, references within a work are not
>necessarily derivatives of the visual world that we can physically
experience
>but can be as abstract as an idea alone. Now that in itself isn't so novel
but
>does become a bit convoluted when we take that premise and try to apply it
>legitimately to a work of art. I will be the first to admit that it may be
>impossible to support this view in terms of objective reasoning but I'd
like to
>try and work through the idea anyway.
to attempt the impossible... that is the mark of an artist.
>The first and perhaps the most essential barrier to cross is what each of
us
>accepts as a valid work of art before we can even say that one idea or
another
>is applicable. So far there seems to be a limit to what is considered a
valid
>product from the act of artmaking. Nevertheless I'll move ahead and state
my
>position anyway.
chris, if almost all art for the last century can not be considered
art(considering that includes most of the people in the discussion) how far
can we get into artmaking?
>I think there are no limits or boundaries on what may constitute a valid
work of
>art. I've mentioned it before and will repeat that I consider artmaking to
be
>the act itself and not the product. As an observer, we experience the act
>through the finished product whatever that turns out to be and we do
evaluate
>the effort through that product. To dismiss an abstract painting for
instance,
>because it fails to convey intent, doesn't invalidate the act, only the
success
>or failure of communication or expression. For all I know we may simply
get
>stuck and spin our wheels over this issue but what the hell.
i agree, actually i would like to know who else agrees with the fact that
process not product is artmaking?
>Back to subject of matter and content, I might suggest that the obvious
subject
>matter in a landscape painting for instance, might be something like an
>artist's concern or interest in the forces itself that thrust the land
shape
>into a particular configuration. Two approaches to this same interest can
be
>taken.
>
>One expresses the idea through an interpretation of the "scene" itself,
>interjecting his own exaggerations to highlight his intent (maybe like
Cezanne
>for instance). Another artist may use a flat color approach and define
this
>same "scene" as a series of dynamic interplay between shape and color alone
>(maybe like Milton Avery for instance). The "essential subject" can result
in
>a successful expression in an aesthetic way to define the content.
Alright,
>that's not a big deal idea either. It's when we might not have the right
clues
>in our mind that we may judge one work to succeed in terms of intent and
>expression and the other fail.
or perhaps success(of the product by expression) could be to push the
observer to question or emote a value or concept which may or may not be
what the process was about? think about the common denominator of good
art(whatever that means to you) and it is a spark of something beyond
mundane existence. one pushes beauty, another the cruelty of violence,
another the overwhelming power of nature or man, and still another an
intellectual pursuit( a literary or philosophical reference, a deep
recognition of purity of technique). even better yet, a mixture of these and
all the other ideas and emotions expressed by great art, there is a thread.
>However, we experience the world through different levels of our mind and
>generally speaking, we intellectually accept the physical rendering to be a
>more accurate representation of meaning. That one sided view ignores the
other
>level of our response to real world experience and that response can be on
an
>emotional level.
intellectually, we know( i have seen your art so i will go out on a limb)
that the physical(visual) is not all of reality. the art world seems to be
holding on to a Newtonian view of the world, what we see with our eyes isn't
even close to what is really there(not scary physics, just the invention of
the microscope), so why do the flat worlders get to keep the title of
intellectual?
>Emotion is an abstract response we have to an event. We find it difficult
to
>verbally explain so our understanding exists on an intuitive level. If a
work
>can speak more forcefully on an emotional level and does so in a way that
our
>understanding is emotional then we can take into account another doorway
into
>understanding visual language. We can judge a work that is expressed in an
>abstract way if we filter our reading through our intuitive senses rather
than
>the intellect.
because emotion is far deeper(older) part of the brain than language skills.
>Still, the issue of quality or success pertaining to the use and expression
of
>an abstract idea as subject in a work of art isn't being addressed here but
>perhaps at a later time.
without this, how can we ever address the success of any art, unless it is
representational, since it is not considered art for this very
reason(abstract ideas).
hoping you can do a better job than i and cheering you all the way
tracy