The question itself appeared quite straightforward, however part of the assignment suggests that we review Thierry DeDuve’s essay which is described as “demanding”. To be honest, this went completely over my head. It is way too complicated for me; in fact it really put me off the whole assignment and as a result it was late being uploaded.
I just feel that as part 1 of year 1 with OCA, this essay itself is much too advanced without any previous knowledge. As I have said before, there is no preparatory course for UVC, or entry requirements, and as such I came into this programme with zero knowledge of theory or philosophy or even timelines of art. And yes, it did encourage me to research by myself and I found so much useful and interesting material, BUT some areas really, really need a lecture. Or a tutorial, or somewhere where the detail of such a massive work can be explained to the students in an easier format, where one can ask questions real-time etc.
I do feel like I’m making and excuse here, and most likely because I feel I did badly on this assignment, but I have had this feeling a couple of times over Section 1 and Section 2 of the course and I think I will be supplying it as feedback to OCA at the end of the year.
I was doing a little bit of research today on Dorothea Lange and her photography and came across an interview she did with Richard K. Doud in 1964.
Having read through the transcript, I have copied below a couple of phrases that I think are important turns of phrase, or descriptions of her work, or just interesting tidbits!
the great visual importance of what’s in people’s snapshots that they don’t know is there. I mean, what great photographs that there are in snapshots. I’d say that many great photographs are in people’s top drawers, with deckle edges, you know, pictures of their relatives, and they never see them in any way but personal.
I had made some photographs of the state as people – Here
*In answer to the question about modern photography and why it is not as successful at engaging the audience’s emotions:
…..that is the importance of recognizing that we have that problem, that we share it with millions of others. It takes a lot to get full attention to a picture these days, because we are bombarded by pictures every waking hour, in on form or another, and transitory images seen, unconsciously, in passing, from the corner of our eyes, flashing at us, and this business where we look at bad images- impure. I don’t know why the eye doesn’t get calloused as your knees get calloused or your fingers get calloused, the eye can’t get… We are misusing the language of picture, and I tell you, it’s an exploited medium. It is not a developing medium; it’s being destroyed. – Here
Two whole weeks ago I visited the Lavery & Osborne exhibition at the Hunt Museum, Limerick. I have been meaning to upload my notes since then!
I took notes by hand during the exhibition, along with some photos (where photos were allowed) and they are listed below.
Osborne, Milking Time in St. Marnock’s Byre, 1898
I really loved this piece. The use of light in the painting was incredible; particularly the shaft of light that was coming through a small window in the roof. I found it interesting that there was very little detail for the people in the painting, while the animals had much more. The cow being milked appeared to be looking out at the viewer, giving the impression that she was the only one who took note of the artist in the moment. There didn’t seem to be any white paint used at all, with variations of pale yellows and creams used as highlights. Even the white of the cow was made up of small strokes of blues, browns, yellows and reds. It made me think of Ruskin’s quote about “the innocence of the eye” – where the artist focused on recreating the small patches of colour in the scene rather than a realistic interpretation, resulting in his capture of the feeling at the moment.
Osborne, Potato Gathering, 1888
Potato Gathering was one of the pieces I was looking forward to seeing. Unfortunately, the gallery had hung the piece quite high up, which made examining the details quite difficult. I was trying to decide if the painting had been made at sunset or sunrise; I think it was sunset, as the light is situated mostly on the land, rather than the sky, but perhaps I am wrong. Again, there are very few facial features for the figures in the painting. Only one figure appears to be facing the viewer, although she seems to be looking at the woman and girl to the fore, rather than out at the viewer. There is, however, great detail in the small birds flying in the distance to the back left of the scene. This gave an awesome depth to the landscape. As in Milking Time, there was no white visible on the piece, despite the white clothing of the girl. It was created with a mixture of tones and hues, matching the atmosphere of the scene. It seemed as thought the majority of people in the scene were from a poorer class, while the girl at the front appears to be dressed more finely with a hat and nice dress. The light on the hills in the background almost splits the scene in two. The brushstrokes were very small and sharp, creating an almost blurred appearance.
Osborne, View from Templeogue Bridge, 1879
I have been trying to find a modern view from this area, as it’s a massively populated area of Dublin now, but can’t see anything similar to this landscape anywhere! The first thing that I considered with this piece was that it seemed much more detailed than the previous two Osborne pieces. This was the earliest of the three, painted in 1879. It shows, I think, how the artists style changed over the years becoming more impressionist. The river draws the eye in a meandering path towards the mountains in the distance. What I found most fascinating about this piece was the detail of the shadow from the clouds on the mountains in the background. I live in a country area with lots of mountains nearby, and this is always my favourite thing to see. It makes the landscape so much more interesting, with varying colours and shades, adding depth and excitement to an otherwise regular landscape. The detail in this painting was amazing; very small, thin brushstrokes to create the grasses and flowers at the forefront of the piece meant you could almost feel the blades of grass, as though they were three dimensional. Even the larger trees to the right were made from very small, individual strokes of paint.
Lavery: Tangier, 1919 and On the Cliffs, Tangier 1911
To be honest, I went to this exhibition for Lavery’s work. Upon entering the gallery, these were the first two Lavery paintings on display. I wanted to put the two together as I feel they can be much easier compared and contrasted that way.
On the Cliffs, Tangier was painted in 1911, 8 years before Tangier. What struck me most about both pieces was the size; Tangier measuring 64 x 76cm and On the Cliffs measuring 64 x 77cm, they were almost identical in size. Both paintings feature an expanse of water that almost covers the whole canvas – particularly in On The Cliffs. I was struck by how engaging such a subject could be – particularly when it features such a calm expanse of water, as opposed to something with more energy, perhaps rough weather. A calm sea is difficult to paint, difficult to keep your eye in any one place and difficult, at least in my opinion, to keep the viewer intruiged. Somehow, Lavery does just that with both pieces. Granted, Tangier does have some more activity to draw the viewers attention, but On The Cliffs is so simple but so engaging. The figures have no distinct identities; they appear to be mother and daughter, from a wealthy family, sitting on the cliffs overlooking the sea and the landmass in the distance. The weather feels hot, the sunshine hazy. The water is so still, that only the varying colours on the surface that match the cloud cover above. Some areas of the water are more shaded, where the darker clouds are, and this adds dimension to the piece. The brushstrokes appear to be of varying sizes, supplying little in terms of definition to their subject, and in some places incorporating circular strokes. This makes the texture of the painting itself very interesting to look at. Perhaps that is what draws the eye.
Tangier is more detailed in terms of activity and colour. The brighter colour suggests a clearer atmosphere than the previous piece, with brighter sunshine enhancing the colourful clothing of those on the beach. The sky itself is less clouded and hazy than the previous painting, and this is reflected in the lightness of the scene. The figures on the beach consist of men and camels – none with much definition or facial features. In fact, some of the figures are no more than suggestions of persons, singular strokes of paint. The eye is drawn by the curved shore to the city on the cliffs. The reflection of the city can be seen on the water. Small streams of water and areas of wet sand can be seen on the beach at the front which helps with the perspective of the piece. This painting seems to be done with thin, sharp, quick brushstrokes.
Lavery, The Bridge at Hesterworth, Shropshire, 1884
I wanted to post this painting next because I think it is a great example of how Lavery incorporated the weather into his work. The last two paintings were made in Tangier, Morocco; the atmosphere is light, airy, bright and colourful. In contrast, The Bridge at Hesterworth, Shropshire is the epitamy of British weather. The painting itself is dark. It didn’t come out in the photo as much as I wanted, but to see it in person it is much darker that it appears above. Without even painting the sky, the viewer is drawn in to a wet, dull, dark English day – very similar to the weather in Ireland! The tones of the colours are quite muted, but still bright in pigment. The brushstrokes are thin, the painting gives a feeling of a slow day.
Osborne, Boy on Donkey in a snowy landscape, 1884
This painting was really small, only 11 x 17cm. Being honest, I was not very impressed with it. I sat for a long time trying to pinpoint what I didn’t like, and the only thing I wrote down was “perspective”. I felt that the depth the artist tried to portray just didn’t happen. In the close-up photo above you can almost identify what I mean; the house painted in the valley below is so much smaller than the man and donkey, which obviously means that they were further away in the distance. I just felt that there was no break between the road and the valley below to make it deeper. The man is also much larger than the donkey – I’m sure that’s how it was at the time, as donkey’s are quite small and can be ridden by adults – but I think it throws the perspective off a little. The man is looking straight at the viewer, but there is actually very little detail on his face, which is quite uncomfortable. I did enjoy the painting of the dog to the right, which was much more detailed than the man and the donkey.
Osborne, Primary Education, 1886
This was one of two paintings of children by Osborne that I had taken notes for, but unfortunately I did not get a photo of the second painting, titled Children and Rabbits, 1886.
Both paintings were made in the same year, which I found interesting, and both featured young children with animals. The painting above was interesting to see up close. It looked as though it had begun as a study of the young boy, with the background and animals added afterwards. What suggested this to me was the “halo” around the child’s head, as though Osbourne was trying to blend the newly added background to surround the child without upsetting the original painting. Again, I found the depth a little lacking, I think because there is no obvious source of light and therefore the light is just “coming” from above, leaving very little shadow to allow depth to appear. While the child is quite detailed, the dog has the emotion. The artist really captured the emotion of the dog looking at this bird that could be prey, you can feel the intensity just by looking at it. I also enjoyed the glass bottle on the bottom left; it’s transparency can really be felt in the image.
I can only apologise for the quality of the photo. This piece was small, and hung very high up on the wall. As a result I had to reach high up to take the photo without any glare from the lighting and it came out quite shaky! It is a beautiful piece. The way that the light was captured is mesmerising. It is almost photographic. I would have loved to look more closely, but it was hung too high up (and I am tall! So I think that was a fault on the part of the gallery). I wanted to see more clearly how the light on the sea behind the boy was painted on the canvas – was it really just white? Could something so simple really create such light? Unfortunately, I didn’t get to see it any closer.
Lavery Portraits
As I reached the Lavery portraits, the gallery was filling up and photo opportunities decreased.
The two paintings above are just some of the paintings that were on display, but I thoroughly enjoyed them. Portraits fascinate me, because I find them so difficult. I find it difficult to get a likeness, a feeling of the person behind the pose. Lavery did not have this problem! All of the portraits, except those of his wife, had the same sort of rushed urgency about them. The detail of the face was fine, the clothing and the remainder of the pose were rarely finished. The brushstrokes were large but quick, and it seemed to me that really they were all just sketches, on the go, but that still struck the observer as a completed portrait.
Conclusion
Lavery and Osborne were quite different in their styles of painting, but covered similar subjects. I found myself drawn more to Lavery’s paintings visually, but found it difficult to critique them and therefore had little to write! Osborne’s paintings did not always appeal to me, but they did provide a lot more food for thought.
While I enjoyed the setting of the exhibition – it’s a large, old, family house that has been turned into a museum in Limerick City, Ireland – I found the set up a bit disappointing. The lighting was wrong; there was a glare on all of the paintings that made viewing them from a few steps back difficult. I found I was constantly leaning forward just the see the complete pitcure, and this became impossible as the gallery filled up with onlookers. I also would like to see them hung at an even, lower level. Some walls were hung with paintings above my head height, and it really was impossible to appreciate them fully at such a distance and angle.
I was delighted to hear that most of the paintings in the exhibition were from Private Collections, and had never been seen together before. It was a wonderful collection of work and very inspiring.
I completed two oil paintings this weekend based on my recent readings and how they made me feel.
Rain in the distance
This piece was inspired by the landscapes I saw at the Lavery and Osborne exhibition. Very different in style, but the feeling it brings me is similar. It was done based on the view from my studio over the fields behind my house. It has been a terrible summer in terms of sun, but the changing weather and (what feels like constant) rain have made for some beautiful skies. Often we see the rain falling from a distance before it arrives. It exists without us even knowing – essence before existence.
Condemned to be free
This piece is a much smaller canvas. I wanted to convey the feeling that I got from reading about Existentialism and how man is “condemned to be free”. The unidentified landscape towering over the nameless figure in the centre was to emphasise the space and freedom we are born with; which is often made out to be a scary prospect, constant bombardment in the media of the dangers of an ever shrinking world society, which in fact is only partly true. There are huge expanses in this world where one can be utterly free. Only the choice to find them holds us back.
I have had such a busy week between study and work. I still have the photos and notes from Saturday’s exhibition to post, I have exercise 2.1 almost done but again needs to be photographed and posted, and I have exercise 2.2 done too! I also started two oil paintings over the weekend.
Hoping to post everything tomorrow, if I get time in between work.
This evening, my thought for the day is “breathe”. I absolutely panicked about exercise 2.1 when I saw it. I thought there is no way I can research and find out that much information in such a short space of time! I procastinated for 2 days! But once I had calmed down, I decided all I can do is my best, and stop comparing my work to others. So I have it done now, just need to photograph it and post it.
As part of my tutor feedback, I was encouraged to look into Existentialism, as a complement to J.R. Searle’s The Construction of Social Reality (which I have yet to finish).
The wording that was suggested to me was “existence preceeds essence”, and so a quick internet search led me to the most amazing, beautiful, scanned copy of Existentialism and Humanism by Jean-Paul Sartre (can be found here).
Having never really heard of existentialism before, this was a great way to dive in the deep end. The book itself is based on defending the theory from criticisms which it had received – this made the layout of the book and the explanation of the theory so much easier to follow than I had imagined. With each topic laid out clearly, explaining the criticism to the topic and then very clear and definitive responses was very easy to follow.
Some thoughts on this book:
Simple example to help definition: consider a paper-knife to be an article of manufacture, which has a particular purpose. It was conceived of, as an idea for a purpose, by an artisan. It was then laid out as a method of production, then produced and used for the purpose as it was conceived. The conception of the idea of a paper-knife is to say that the essence of the object existed before the item itself existed, and it now exists only for the sole purpose as conceived. Similarly, if man was created by God, then the essence of man would have existed before the existence of man, and with a sole purpose. Existentialism proposes that there is no God, and therefore there is no Essence before Existence, and therefore no “sole purpose” (or in other words, no human nature, no divine fate for a man’s life).
“when God creates he knows precisely what he is creating. Thus, the conception of man in the mind of God is comparable to that of the paper-knife in the mind of the artisan: God makes man according to a procedure and a conception, exactly as the artisan manufactures a paper-knife, following a definition and a formula. Thus each individual man is the realization of a certain conception which dwells in the divine understanding. In the philosophic atheism of the eighteenth century, the notion of God is suppressed, but not, for all that, the idea that essence is prior to existence…. Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declare with greater consistency that if God does not exists there is at least one being whose existence comes before it’s essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. That being is man” (Sartre, 1948)
This makes so much sense to me; not to say that I am an atheist (or am I?) but that I have never understood God as anything more than a human creation – in my mind, God is a concept of man, created in order to a) put some sort of explanation as to where we came from and b) to help impose a moral culture among masses of people living together in communities, cities countries.
This ties in somewhat with one of the lectures I am listening to at the moment on The Great Ideas of Philosophy by Daniel Robinson. The last few lectures that I have listened to are relating to morality and moral epistemology – how do human beings become aware of, or acuire knowledge about moral good and evil. I found Sartre’s atheist existentialist approach to this subject to be very interesting; that one does good not because God has decreed he should, but that it is a choice between two actions – one producing better results for mankind than the other – and that man understands he is the example for all men.
“the first effect of existentialism is that it puts every man in possession of himself as he is, and places the entire responsibility for his existence squarely upon his own shoulders. And, when we say that man is responsible for himself, we do not mean that he is responsible only for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men.”
I related Sartre’s discussion on “Anguish” to that question of moral epistemology. Sartre explains that anguish is brought about by man’s realisation that he acts as a role model for all men, and that he should understand if he acts in such a manner, so will others. This anguish should promote action – positive action – by all men based on their desire to improve the human race, rather than leaving the responsibility with God. Critics will say that existentialism promotes doing “nothing” because there is no pressure from God or the promise of an afterlife or morals etc. however the opposite is true. If there is no-one else responsible, and you know that you are to set an example, then you should always act – proactively – to promote what is good.
“Everything happens to every man as though the whole human race had its eyes fixed upon what he is doing and regulated its conduct accordingly. So every man ought to say “Am I really a man who has the right to act in such a manner that humanity regulates itself by what I do…Far from being a screen which could separate us from actions, it is a condition of action itself”
It was interesting then, to read this paragraph on the existence of a priori good and bad:
“He discovers firthwith, that he is without excuse. For if indeed existence precedes essence, one will never be able to explain one’s action by reference to a given and specific human nature; in other words, there is no determinism – man is free, man is freedom. Nor, on the other hand, if God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimise our behaviour. Thus we have neither behind us, nor before us in a luminous realm of values, any means of justification or excuse. … What is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself, yet is nevertheless at liberty, and from the moment that he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does.”
I have a couple more pages to go, but I like the idea of creating something based on the feelings that this book has brought up for me.
As I have started section 2 of the course, I am now looking more closely at modern art. Being completely honest, I’m lost. I have started reading Modern Art – a very short introduction by David Cottington. Perhaps it will become more clear as I get further through the book, but at the moment it is just causing more confusion.
What I would like to see – and maybe this is naive of me – is a simple list of what makes art modern. So far, I have managed to gather various snippets of information like:
it challenged traditional definitions of art
it pushed boundaries and rejected standards of the past
it explored new modes of expression
used light, colour, brushstrokes and materials in new ways
focused more on the “everyday man” as opposed to historical figures, myths, wealthy patrons
Maybe that is all there is? I feel like something is missing though. I am going to keep reading this book and see if it clears anything up for me. One thing that always throws me off is when the author lists various names and places that obviously should have some meaning in relation to the text, but that I have never heard of and therefore lose out on the meaning.
I have just completed Exercise 1 of Section 2 and I feel deflated, like maybe I missed the point entirely. We will see.
I received my Tutor Feedback on Assignment one last night. It came in two parts; an annotated version of my work (here) which made it much easier to relate the notes to my own work, and a general comments feedback form (here) which contained more general comments.
I am arranging a convenient time/date to have a phone tutorial with my Tutor to discuss everything in more detail. Meantime, I am going to work on the research suggested by my tutor – namely:
J.P. Sartre – “existence precedes essence” – Existentialism in general
Pooke, Grant and Newall, Diana. (2008), Art History: the basics, London: Routledge
Howells, R. & Negreiros, J. (2012), Visual Culture. 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Polity
I plan to re-construct my essay based on my research, the feedback in my Tutor notes and the tutorial over the phone. Once it is done, I will upload it in a separate post. Areas that need work are:
Develop a single point perspective and why – I need to ask my Tutor to explain this more fully during the Tutorial.
Defining terms at the start of a paper
Referencing (in my own opinion) – should I have larger bibliographies for assignments? Am I referencing enough?
I was delighted to read that I have made a strong start to the unit. I am really enjoying this course and the different depths and categories of research that it brings me to; philosophy might be new favourite subject!
Overall, I am looking forward to the tutorial and have already started Part 2.
As part of my course pack from OCA I received The Visual Culture Reader. Up to now I have been unable, or maybe anxious about, starting it. I tried to start reading it the day I received it and it was much too difficult.
Chapter 1 is “There are no visual media” by W.J.T. Mitchell.
Much more simple than I had expected to understand, the article raises many questions that I have been considering lately outside of this course. I have been listening to a series of lectures by The Teaching Company called “The Great Ideas of Philosophy”. Several lectures that I listened to over the last week addressed the ideas of whether there is a material world or it is just a combination of sensations that we interpret through sensory organs. The eventual conclusion seemed to be that yes, there is a material world but that it is experienced by each person differently to some extent. Man is a material being, a material thing, which exists in a material world and experiences that world as a mental function through its sensory organs and it’s mental capacity to categorise experiences as good or bad, moral or immoral, safe or dangerous.
In addition to these lectures I have been reading Oliver Sacks “The Man who mistook his wife for a hat” which is a fascinating insight into the human neurological world and how – even if your sensory organs are intact and working correctly – the brains interpretation of the world can make it so different from one person to another.
When I consider these writings in conjunction with the article denouncing visual media, it really does make sense. If you, as an observer, were to use only your visual organs to interpret the world, you would be completely lost. Considering this against my first assignment on “the innocent eye” makes me question my response to the question. On one hand I understand the theory behind “the innocence of the eye” being useful in painting, I just cannot agree that it would produce anything engaging.
The artist puts themselves into their work -even when trying not to do so. As Mitchell says “seeing painting is seeing touching, seeing the hand gestures of the artist”. The world itself is not purely visual. Our day to day experiences are not purely visual; consider our constant mental narrative which makes sense of our world minute by minute, second by second. People with visual impairments experience the world and contribute to the world in a way that suggests their experience is not all that different from those with functional vision. To see a painting is to touch, by some extension that I cannot clearly describe, the painting itself. The eye can identify all of the media that was used – sketch lines, base colour, layering, brushstrokes, frustration, patience, recklessness and perfectionism. We see these parts of a painting without trying to. Yes, they are visually represented to us but they are experienced through a mixture of mental thought, drawing on previous experiences of touch, smell, taste etc.
An interesting quote from Marshall McLuhan (1994/1964) is placed in this article which says “the content of a medium is always an early medium”, and so the content of a painting is always a combination of multiple previous content; the artists experience, the way the artist saw their subject, the techniques they have learned and practised to be able to present this scene, their wishes for the outcome of the painting, their choice of surface, their preference of setting. On top of that there is the medium of paint itself – constructed by another anonymous person by various materials in order to represent a colour which was experienced by them, or not likely, was inferred upon them by their employer to mass produce pigments. Similar processes go into television, music, drawing, architecture and film. Manipulation of various media in order to reproduce a something based on the artists intentions, and then communicated to the observer who manipulates the situation all over again for their own understanding.
It really is a fascinating concept. My challenge to myself is to figure out how to incorporate this work into my own artwork. The phrases that sticks with me while I do this are “language enters painting” and “seeing painting is seeing touching”
References:
Mirzoeff, N. The Visual Culture Reader, “There are no visual media”, Routledge, 2013, Third Edition
Robinson, D. N.(release date 08/07/2013), The great ideas of philosophy, 2nd edition, narrated by: Robinson, Daniel N., available at http://www.audible.co.uk, ,Downloaded on 1 October 2018
Sacks, O. (release date 12/07/2018), The Man Who mistook his wife for a hat, narrated by: Jonathan Daivs, Oliver Sacks, available at http://www.audible.co.uk, Downloaded on 11 February 2019.
At the recommendation of my tutor, I have been trying to find time for creating, as well as reading.
Today was a day to ease myself back in after quite a long break. I always find myself back with horses, so I went with something comfortable until I get back into the swing of things.
I keep thinking about perspective. It was part of assignment one and I feel I didn’t read enough on it. It played on my mind today while painting and I find the final piece looks better from a side angle. I wonder was this an unconscious decision? Or perhaps it is the perspective of viewing the painting as a photo of the final piece, rather than looking in person.
I find watercolours frustrating. The paper warps and the pigment is never strong enough. I used HB pencil, charcoal and then watercolour. The frame is unfortunately obvious as a late idea, I was thinking about how the worth of a painting is sometimes related to its setting.
UVC - Shóna 