So, I have always been of the impression that “I can’t” paint portraits. In fact, I “can’t” even draw faces that look anything like my subject.
Well, while I’m on lockdown I decided to give it a try and practice until I can. Admittedly I used a photo for reference for my first go.
It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child.
Pablo Picasso
Look again at Alfred Barr’s chart for Cubism and Abstract Art and say briefly how it might be understood as information in a system. Briefly compare it to Minard’s map (previous).
Barr’s Cubism and Abstract Art chart is a visual representation of time, art movements, geographical locations and external influences (external data). While it is visually interesting, it is most definitely a system of information for the observer to understand. It is different from a “simply visual” image, in that it dictates information to the viewer rather than transmitting information for the user to observe – we are “given” information, rather than “interpreting” an image.
It is of vertical orientation in terms of time, with some lateral movement of influence between movements, for example “BAUHAUS” to “MODERN ARCHITECTURE”.
We can say that it is a system of information, because of the limitations prescribed in the chart; specifically between 1890 to 1935. Also the use of specific symbols; such as red/black arrows for us to interpret as movement of time and influence.
Minard’s Map is also a set of information within a system, in that it visually displays information relating to a specific event, with specific symbols to represent different sets of information.
As a statistical chart, the map unites six different sets of data. • Geography: rivers, cities and battles are named and placed according to their occurrence on a regular map. • The army’s course: the path’s flow follows the way in and out that Napoleon followed. • The army’s direction: indicated by the colour of the path, gold leading into Russia, black leading out of it. • The number of soldiers remaining: the path gets successively narrower, a plain reminder of the campaigns human toll, as each millimetre represents 10.000 men. • Temperature: the freezing cold of the Russian winter on the return trip is indicated at the bottom, in the republican measurement of degrees of réaumur (water freezes at 0° réaumur, boils at 80° réaumur). • Time: in relation to the temperature indicated at the bottom, from right to left, starting 24 October (pluie, i.e. ‘rain’) to 7 December (-27°).
(Jacobs, 2019)
While the use of symbols in both charts is a similarity, the type of symbol and what they mean in each case is different, based on our expectations of the information being provided as well as our interaction with the descriptive legends provided in each.
One obvious difference I notice is the orientation of the charts; Minard’s being horizontal, Barr’s being vertical. While they both contain some movement in the orientation of the other, they are generally in opposing orientations but both representing time. Could this be called a different similarity? Since both reference one data type, but display it differently. It’s an interesting thought.
REFERENCES
Cubism and Abstract Art. (1936). [ebook] New York: MoMA, p.page two. Available at: https://www.moma.org/documents/moma_catalogue_2748_300086869.pdf [Accessed 22 Aug. 2019].
Friendly, M. (2019). English Translation of Minards Map. [image] Available at: http://www.datavis.ca/gallery/re-minard.php [Accessed 22 Aug. 2019].
Jacobs, F. (2019). The Minard Map – “The best statistical graphic ever drawn”. [online] Big Think. Available at: https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/229-vital-statistics-of-a-deadly-campaign-the-minard-map [Accessed 22 Aug. 2019].
Can you see a connection between Emerson’s remarks and the view expressed by Searle in chapter one? Where do their views overlap and where do they differ? You could address this in three columns – one for each author either side of a column of similarities. The differences will be those points that are not similarities.
For this exercise, I used the passage printed in course-work by Emerson, compared to John R. Searle’s “The Construction of Social Reality”, 1995
| EMERSON | SIMILARITIES | SEARLE |
| Human need to categorise/discover their world | Emerson’s mention of “restless curiosity” / Searle’s reference to an “observer-relative” world | “Observer-relative features exist only relative to the attitudes of observer’s. [buried cities, mummy pits, Egyptian characters]” |
| “shall we see a less venerable antiquity in the clouds and the grass?” | Natural phenomena are often ignored in favour of histories that have meaning for the observer | “we do not speak of better and worse stones, unless of course we have assigned a function to the stone” |
| “An everlasting Now reigns in Nature that produces on our bushes the selfsame Rose which charmed the Roman and the Chaldaean” | Nature exists whether it has use for us or not | “Intrinsic features don’t give a damn about observers and exist independently of observers” |
| “the oldest work of man is an upstart by the side of the shells of the sea.” | We are only just beginning to understand our world, where nature has existed (without our involvement) for much longer | “except for those parts of nature that are conscious, nature knows nothing of functions”. “the world (or alternatively, reality or the universe) exists independently of our representations of it”. “Except for the little corner of the world that is constituted or affected by our representations, the world would still have existed and would have been exactly the same as it is now” |
For a picture of your own choice say how the image indicates a point of view for the spectator and say why you think the effect is rare in the cinema but common in photography.
Does the painting or photograph represent eye-contact between someone
in the picture and ourselves. What films have you seen where characters treat the camera as another person.
For this exercise I chose one of my favourite photographers, Dorothea Lange. While she has many stunning photographs to choose from, the below photo seemed to fit this exercise.
In this photo, the man at the centre makes – what feels like – direct eye contact with the spectator. The photographer was obviously at eye level with this man when the photo was taken, and he was clearly engaged with her at the time. As a spectator now, this emotion transfers through his eye contacts to us, and I personally felt a very strong connection with him. I think he felt quite proud to have his photo taken, even in such dire circumstances as the title suggests; he is well dressed, he has kind eyes and there is a “feeling” from him that suggests a friendly nature. I also think that the other two men not looking at the camera makes the central figure so much more engaging. They are also both standing slightly behind him. Although the man on the left is slightly taller than the central figure, his white hat makes him appear shorter, while the bowed head of the man to the right also contributes to this. I like to think that, because it was taken in 1937, this photo is less “retouched” or at least less “digitised” than modern photography, and I think that adds an authenticity to this eye contact.
I think that this kind of connection, this kind of one-on-one emotional connection between the spectator and the subject is unique to photography. In cinema, for example, the image is always moving. It is rare to see this one snap moment of connection and be able to look at it again and again without the disconnect that would have happened just after in real life. In Cinema, this moment just blends in with the longer scene of eye contact with the spectator – even though this happens very little. Most cinema is produced with a narrative intent – to tell a story to a person who is slightly disconnected to it. Cinema does invoke emotions in the spectator, but it doesn’t feel the same as the emotions you get from looking at Lange’s photo above. It is false, scripted, they are looking at the camera, not at the spectator.
Films I have seen, in which the characters treat the camera as another person would be:
Titanic – when Rose and Jack are dancing, the camera takes turns at being each character
The Muppet’s Christmas Carol – pretty much the whole movie is engaging the camera as the audience.
Braveheart – there is a wonderful scene where the love of his life looks at him and eye contact is made, however the camera takes the place of William Wallace and therefore we, as spectators take his place also.
REFERENCES:
What would count as examples of ‘utter flatness’. List five things an artist might do to exploit the idea. In other words what kind of things might one put on a gallery wall that could pass for an abstract or figurative paint but also reveal themselves to be everyday objects?
The idea of “flatness” had never really occurred to me before this section of the coursework. In preparation for this exercise, I read Greenberg’s essay on Modernist Painting in order to try to decipher what exactly he meant by “flatness”. I found the article confusing, and a little above my head. One explanation that I found useful from Greenberg was “One is made aware of the flatness of their pictures before, instead of after, being made aware of what the flatness contains” (Greenberg, 1960).
Further reading brought me to the “Theory of Flatness”, as discussed on The Art Story website (The Art Story, here). This website very clearly explained that “before the advent of the Modern artistic era (approximately pre-Impressionism), art was not created to call attention to itself, but to celebrate figurative forms and accurately depict things that had some basis in reality.” (The Art Story). In Modernist painting, attention was brought to the act of painting itself, with the artist consciously drawing attention to the fact that this was a painting, not a recreation of a three dimensional object. The website goes on to state that this acknowledgement of the flatness of the canvas, and the constraints that the frame of the canvas provide, is most obvious in abstract art, which featured non-objective paintings.
“Modern artists began consciously drawing viewers’ attention to two important factors: the shape of a painting’s support (canvas) and the properties of the painting’s forms. Thus the painting’s flatness became an integral component in the viewer’s experience of the artwork”
With this information in mind, I tried to tackle the task of this exercise. The “criteria” I’m looking for, from what I researched, are:
My first example is the ceiling tile in my office.
It is definitely a flat surface, confined within the “frame” of the supporting bars. The surface has no real central focus, but does have interesting markings on it. There is no attempt to disguise this as anything but a flat, white surface.
Wall tiles designed to accentuate the flatness of the wall surface. They are flat, they have specific frames or constraints, they do not have a specific focal point and they do not attempt to show depth.
This is one that I think might be incorrect, but I wanted to include so that I could argue my reasons behind it’s inclusion.
The page of a book is most definitely defined by a frame or shape; and is also confined within the constraints of the book itself (between covers). It is a flat surface. It does not attempt to convince the viewer of any visual depth. This page, in particular, has no heading, which means that it does not have any one, central focal point. Yes, there is text which one is expected to focus on; but one can only focus on one word at a time, and there are dozens on this page, meaning that no one word is more “central focus” worthy than another. In fact, I have several issues with reading, and when I look at this picture I notice first the shape of the text overall, in it’s equally distanced margins and it’s slightly misshapen edge on the right, before I notice the words themselves. Perhaps I am incorrect in this assumption, but I thought it would be a worthy inclusion here.
Wolf, J, Theory – Flatness, The Art Story, Accessed On 25/06/2019, online at https://www.theartstory.org/definition-flatness.htm
Greenberg, C. 1960, Modernist Painting, York University, Accessed on 25/06/2019, Online at www.yorku.ca/yamlau/readings/greenberg_modernitsPainting.pdf
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Describe the features in each of these paintings that you think correspond to Greenberg’s view that kitsch ‘imitates the effects of art’. In other words how has the artist made the painting look artistic – as if for a sophisticated taste.
First, I think it is important to define what made Greenberg come to the conclusion that kitsch “imitates the effects of art” – what is the effect of art?
What is art? According to Pooke, G. and Newall, D. in Art History: The Basics (2008), a general understanding of art is something which has been produced without a function (not a craft, such as chair making), activities which produce works with aesthetic value, made of any medium. (pg. 4-5). Essentially, art is whatever an artist makes, that has been accepted as art by the art community.
What is Kitsch? Oxford English Dictionary defines Kitsch as “art, objects or design considered to be in poor taste because of excessive garishness or sentimentality, but sometimes appreciated in an ironic or knowing way”. We should expect Kitsch Art would be over-exaggerated in terms of colour or design, sentimental emotions or garish imagery. Art, as an institution, can seem exclusive and haughty, ‘not for regular people’ and almost religious in nature, especially when one considers museums and galleries with their hushed tones and special lighting. Perhaps Kitsch art has developed such a following as a rebellion against this atmosphere, this religiosity. Kitsch is more approachable, more accessible, more “normal” than say Da Vinci’s The Last Supper.
So what is the effect of Art? According to Clive Bell (1949), a Work of Art will ‘provoke our aesthetic emotions’ (Bell, 1949: 8). Similarly, Collingwood (1975) stated that art is distinguished (from craft) by a particular emotion which is communicated with the viewer (Pooke. G & Newall G, 2008:14) .
Therefore, for this exercise, I would expect the two paintings to deviate from the traditional arts in terms of exaggerated colours and design, but using traditional materials or methods of painting in order to still create a visual image that stimulates a response within the viewer.
Vladimir Tretchikoff, The Chinese Girl, 1950
The painting features a Chinese woman in traditional clothing. The painting is done using Oils on Canvas, which is quite typical for traditional portrait paintings. The subject looks out to the right of the painting, and not directly at the viewer, which makes her seem aloof or as though she does not want to be seen. While her features and clothing are distinctly Chinese, her makeup and hair seem more commercial or modern. The artist has used exaggerated colours to emphasis bright lipstick, bright coloured silk on her kimono. Her face is, however, a rather dark sky blue colour. The remainder of her clothing is uncoloured, as is the background, which makes the painting appear unfinished. It also makes the bright colours stand out even more to the viewer.
The colours that the artist uses are definitely not typical of portraiture. The skin tone is unnatural, the lip colour is overly exaggerated. While the subjects pose and the realistic form of the painting might imitate traditional art, the unnatural colouring makes it stand out as rather garish. Placed in a gallery of traditional portraits, for example, the piece would stand out exaggeratedly. Does it stimulate a response within the viewer, as is the typical effect of art? Yes, I believe so. The painting itself is wonderful in terms of form and composition. The woman is beautiful, her expression is very communicative, it makes me feel sadness or longing.
The painting features a faceless woman, posed in an entrance way overlooking the sea. The woman’s facial features are hidden from the viewer by a large sun hat, her hands hidden by long gloves and her body mostly concealed by a loose dress. It appears to be a resort of some type, overlooking the sea, which is surmised by her dress and the exaggerated foliage around what appears to be a balcony. Palm trees often symbolise tropical places, vacations.
The painting is made using oils on canvas. The imitation of depth in the scene, painted from a single point perspective, is definitely a tradition in “art proper”. The silhouette of the woman through the dress is quite skilfully painted, as is the detail of the foliage and the sky. The colours are bright and unusual; even within the context of a “holiday” scene. I feel as though the long gloves, which I would associate with dinner parties or glamorous ball gowns, seem completely out of place in this seaside image. The colouring of the pillars, which I feel were an attempt to imitate marbling, are unusual and quite jarring. Also, while the railings have been painted in a realistic form, their colouring suggests that they were painted unusually to show the foliage through what should be solid form. Alternatively, they could be painted to imitate some sort of reflective material which is reflecting colours and images to the viewer. Does it invoke an emotional response from the viewer? Yes; I really dislike it. I feel uncomfortable looking at it, as though the colouring is just too off for my liking. I dislike the combination of the glamour and the relaxed, the contrasting tones and the faceless woman. I would still say that this image, as Kitsch Art, does imitate the effect of art, because art can invoke all types of emotions, not just joy or pleasure.
REFERENCES
Bell, Clive (1949) Art, New Edition, London: Chatto & Windus
Pooke, G. & Newall, D. (2008), Art History – the basics, Routledge, London & New York.
Make your own copy of Barr’s chart and extend it up to the year 2000 by including movements such as Pop Art. In a separate column list major events in politics and culture that you think have had some bearing on the kind of art practiced at the time.
The text is quite small, so I have listed my “Political and Cultural Events” below.
| 1940s |
| Pearl Harbour – 1941. Hiroshima – 1941. Indian Independence – 1947. Communism in China. |
| 1950s |
| I imagine that the effects of the 1940’s events carried on through the 1950’s in Art, as those who lived through these events processed their meaning through their artwork. Abstract Expressionism seems to be somehow related to the feeling that spontaneous events, outside of ones control, can occur at any moment. There is an urgency in this work. |
| 1960s |
| Assassination of JFK – 1963: perhaps this could relate to the rise of Pop Art, which brought attention to the mass production of banal advertising for materialistic things, at a time when many American’s lost their sense of hope as they grieved. Advancement in the development of photography and digital means of recording the world, leading to increased artistic interest in photography, photorealism, video art. |
| 1970s |
| The Vietnam War: I think that this would be considered the major event of the 1970’s, and one that certainly influenced art and artists. I think as a movement thought, the effects of Vietnam would not be seen in art as an “ism” until the 1980’s. |
| 1980s |
| As above, the effects of Vietnam may be seen in the 1980’s; Neo Expressionism featuring frequently violent, intense subject matter, as the world came to grips with the brutality of that war. Fall of the Berlin Wall – 1989. The AIDS epidemic; fear, illness and death began to spread in the 1980’s. In general, it was quite a decade of upheaval and anxiety. |
| 1990s |
| The launch of the World Wide Web! Again, this surfaces in Art in the following decade. |
REFERENCES
Visual Arts Cork, (2019), Art Encyclopedia, available at http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/ , accessed on 11/06/2019
MoMA (2019), Museum of Modern Art Learning, available at http://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/, access on 12/06/2019
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:
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:
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.
PART A
Look at the painting The Innocent Eye Test by Mark Tansey (below). The phrase ‘the innocence of the eye’ was coined by the British critic John Ruskin in 1857:
The whole technical power o painting depends on our recovery of what may be called the innocence of the eye; that is to say, a sort of childish perception of these flat stains of colour, merely as such, without consciousness of what they signify, as a blind man would see them if suddenly gifted with sight.
Consider what Ruskin is saying and give an interpretation of Tansey’s painting in light of this.
When Ruskin wrote his piece on The Elements of Drawing in 1858, he was really pushing back against the grain of art teaching at that time. He mentions at the start of the series that he wishes to provide an alternative to the teaching practices which were popular at the time. The goal, it seemed to him, was to train students to emulate the work of “second-rate artists” or to further the rapid manufacture of designs (Ruskin, 1858, pp. 9, 10) . The idea of the “innocence of the eye” came from his insistence that the aim of teaching was not to reproduce other artists work, but to reproduce colours and shades as they appear to the eye – without the interference of the artists experience; innocent as a child or a blind man; thereby creating a unique and realistic piece.
The paragraph discussing the innocence of the eye begins with a philosophical statement which reads “the perception of solid form is entirely a matter of experience”. This theory that reality is constructed by our perception of our environment is discussed, many years later, by John R. Searle in The Construction of Social Reality. While there are over 100 years of thought between these two authors, similar and contrasting ideas about reality are discussed throughout both volumes.
Ruskin compares the required ability of a true artist to be similar to those of an infant, or a blind person who has just gained sight; where the world around them consists entirely of various shades of colour. Ruskin states very clearly that “the whole art of Painting consists merely in perceiving the shape and depth of [..] patches of colour, and putting patches of the same size depth and shape on canvas” (Ruskin, 1858, p. 23). In this way, Ruskin is stating that the world consists of intrinsic shapes, colours, physical composition, chemical composition. Searle also discusses this in The Construction of Social Reality, where he explains that intrinsic features of physical objects exist without the need for the attitude or need of an observer; a stone is a physical object whether one had ever known it to be a stone or not. Searle goes on to explain that “when we begin to specify further features that we might call intrinsic to nature and those features that exist relative to the intentionality of observers” (Searle, 1995, p. 9). Ruskin would, in my opinion, insist that a true Artist will paint the world exactly as he sees it at an intrinsic level, without the interference of the intentionality of the artist as an observer. This is what he meant when he described the “innocence of the eye”.
Interpretation of Tansey’s painting in light of this
Taking this into consideration, I think that Tansey’s painting is quite tongue-in-cheek. The painting itself is done in monochrome, rather than colour, which feels like an educational diagram rather than an aesthetic work of art. Within the painting itself we see men with clipboards and laboratory-like clothing, taking notes. We see that the men are looking at the cow, not at the painting. They have unveiled the painting from behind a curtain which now lies on the floor. The painting and the cow are within a museum or gallery setting, not outdoors which would be the natural environment for a cow. The painting of the straw bale in the background is, perhaps, there to encourage the cow to feel more comfortable – although the gilded frame would immediately remove that possibility.
The painting suggests to me that the men – representing perhaps the Institute of Art itself – are relying on the opinion, the reaction, of this cow to determine…what? Should the cow recognise this work of art, would that make the art realistic and therefore worthy of being made in the “innocent eye”? Is Tansey suggesting that the Institution of Art is relying on antiquated methods of judgement to ascribe the title of “Art” to a candidate work? Or, even more provocatively, is Tansey equating the Institute of Art to the cow itself? Danto wrote that art is “any artefact…which has had conferred upon it the status of candidate for appreciation by some person or persons acting on behalf of a certain social institution (the art world)” (Freeland, 2001, pp. 37, 38).
It is difficult to tell from the painting what the cow’s opinion of the painting is. She does appear to be looking at it, but there is no indication of her approval or not. This is not particularly surprising, when to take Searle’s work into account, it would seem that observers (presumably there is no discrimination against bovine observers) will not view the painting with an “innocent eye” but with all of their relational, intentional, historical observations categorising it as a “something”. Therefore, for the cow to see these marks on the canvas and relate them to her previous experience of other cows in nature, she would need to possess the cognitive ability to do so. I do not know a lot about cows, but perhaps this is not possible, particularly when the painting is placed in such an unsuitable environment.
I find myself returning again and again to the “test” word in the title. What is the test? What would be considered a pass? What are they testing for? My conclusion, time and again, is that these official-looking men are basing the worth of a piece – not yet framed, therefore not yet “deemed worthy” – on the reactions of an incompetent jury. I feel that this can only be a criticism of the Art World, of the religiosity of “works of art” and Museums, of the world of art criticism itself.
References:
Freeland, C., 2001. Art Theory A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ruskin, J., 1858. The Elements of Drawing in Three letters to Beginners. New York: Wiley & Halsted.
Searle, J. R., 1995. The Construction of Social Reality. The Free Press ed. New York: Simon & Schuster.
PART B
What are the implications of saying perspective was invented, and what are the implications of saying it was discovered. Assess these two possibilities and give reasons for the one you believe is correct.
Make a list of things you know to be invented and things you know to be discovered. Consider what distinguishes them and where perspective is best placed. Try to be attentive to counter arguements.
Saying that perspective was either invented or discovered is subjective to the type of perspective you are discussing. The definition of perspective is two-fold; either the interpretation of the world as 3D where shapes and environments have physical depth, or the perspective of one’s attitudes towards, or way of seeing something. Both could be applicable to this question, considering the course that we are taking.
Saying that perspective in painting – the creation of depth, of 3D appearance – is discovered means that at some point it existed but had not been recognised or had not existed at all. A quick internet search on the topic brought me to a painting which is considered to have been the “first” painting to use Linear Perspective by Fillipo Brunelleshi in 1415 (see below). What strikes me as uncomfortable about the description of perspective as being discovered, is that perspective has always been part of human daily life. If perspective was only “discovered” at some point, it would mean that the artist suddenly realised that the world is three dimensional, and then decided he should include this important information in his work. That doesn’t sit right with me.
Physical interpretation of perspective, depth, in our day to day lives; our observations as users of our environment, must be considered to have been discovered. Persepctive, in this manner, is something that every person discovers in childhood and learns to understand as an intrinsic part of their world. Items have depth; they take up space. An artist would be aware of this, and constantly attempt to include this detail in his work. Why then, did linear perspective only ‘appear’ in Brunelleshi’s picture, in 1415? “Discovered” is the wrong term, I think.
Perspective as invented makes more sense to me. It strikes me that since the artists before 1415 were naturally aware that the world is three dimensional, then they simply had not discovered a way to portray this in their work. Perspective is difficult, even for those of us well practiced in art creation, and it is not surprising that this technique was not just naturally available to all artists since the dawn of time. Perspective had to be understood to be re-created. And the invention of perspective, as a technique in art, would seem to me more likely.
If one considered “perspective” to mean how we see things, which I think is more likely given the course, the conversation is quite different.
Perspective as ones way of seeing, is invented in so far as we base our perceptions of the world on our experiences. One could experience grass for example, in a positive or negative manner, depending on experience. However, our perspective is also discovered in that it can be reflected upon in order to determine what values our perspective holds. One can discover that ones perspective on something is faulty, or incorrect in some way. Our perspective is also both invented and discovered when we talk about our perspective of art, in that some institutions create – invent – an experience of art in a particular way, to control our perspective of the art. For example, placing a piece of art behind special glass, in a room of it’s own, under special lighting, all creates a religious perspective for the viewer.
However, we can also now come to perspective on art by discovery in today’s world because of the internet. Our constant connectivity and the never ending database of works – without any context – means that our perspective of different art is discovered differently each time we view it in a different context. I found John Berger’s BBC series on Ways of Seeing (Ways of Seeing, 1972) to be very informative on the subjects of perspective, observation and the construction of the reality we live in. I have not quoted directly from the series, but the series itself informed my thoughts on this piece.
Things I know to be invented:
Money – does not exist naturally in the world without human involvement, was invented as a way to keep track of debts between people and to enshrine value on possessions.
Cameras – camera’s were invented by a human being in order to capture the visual experience of a moment and reproduce it.
Telephone – the telephone was invented to fulfil a human need to communicate with other humans despite distance.
Things I know to be discovered:
Various animals – animals existed in the world outside of human observation or categorisation, they exist intrinsically in their own right. Their discovery relates to the human observation and therefore categorisation of them, as they were found in nature.
Fire – fire exists without human observation. It exists in a physical sense whether we agree it does or not.
Stars / Planets – stars and planets existed before our observation of them – although their discovery was really only possible after the invention of the telescope.
Ways of Seeing. 1972. [Film] Directed by John Berger. UK: BBC.
UVC - Shóna 