ORGANIC DEVELOPMENT AND ART STYLE1

8/14/2019 ORGANIC DEVELOPMENT AND ART STYLE1

1/33


2/33

Page from the Book of Kells, c.596 AD


3/33

Venus of Willendorf, c.23,000BC

From the comparisons of these two works the artists attitude toward representationof the human figure seems not to have followed a single line of development. Theintervening 23,596 years give no evidence supporting a view that the artistry appliedto the representation of the human figure had undergone refinement. In light of thefact that somewhere between those two dates the technical ability to render thehuman form had achieved an impressive level of accomplishment

However, in the case of the situation in which we find European man in the 9th

century, the same approximate time that we learn that the blood type AB firstappears in Europe coming out of the East, an odd and very intriguing coincidence,we think we might see how man is represented as emerging, somewhat stiffly, out of a northern world-view entanglement. We might, as well, equally observe that theclassical Mediterranean mind was as well aware of its own dis-ease andconceptually collapsed support when it created works such as the Laocoon asexcellent as its technical execution is it urges us to accept some irrational andunacceptable provisions. n.b. the ways in which the artist had chosen to representgenerational differences. We are asked to accept the proposition that ourgrandfathers should be three times our size since they are thought to be older, wiserand more important than we.


4/33

The Laocoon, c.160 BC


5/33


6/33

Michelangelo Buonarroti: The Pieta, 1499 A.D.

Between the 9 th and 15 th centuries, approximately a half millennium artists weremaking a series of highly creative adjustments to their perceived socialenvironments. One of these is fortunately preserved in the sixth century San Vitali


7/33

in Ravenna where we see the severely hierarchical mosaic work presenting theEmperor Justinian during a ceremonial function.

San Vitali mosaic: Emperor Justinian, 6thC A.D.

The Baroque is believed to have emerged out of the Renaissance. It did, of course,do exactly that, but how is the emergence demonstrated in the works available to us.From my point of view it is the Sistine Chapel that very dramatically demonstratesthe creative power of an age as exemplified in one individual, MichelangeloBuonarotti and specifically in two works, the ceiling of that chapel and its altarpieceThe Last Judgment.

Out of the disciplined and contained awareness expressed by Renaissance formalismcomes the boisterous self-confidence and adventurous spirit of the Baroque. In thelifes work of Michael Angelo we see somewhat hesitant, cautious explorations intothe possibility of sending a more emphatic message by showing how the simpledevice of overlap (see diagram overlay)* can show us to think out of the box. Thebasic structure of Michael Angelos painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapelshows a strong architecturally painted grid within whose spaces occur variousdepictions of Biblical scenes. Only occasionally has the artist allowed a figure tooverlap, obscure or otherwise break into the purity of the geometric shape he hadcreated as a container for the subject of the work within.


8/33

Michael Angelo: Sistine Chapel Ceiling, 1508-1512.

I need to divert somewhat in this discussion at this point and to make an effort to clarify somemisconceptions. It is often stated that in the sophisticated development of graphic representationcertain graphic devices succeed certain others. For example, the making of a stick figure generally


9/33

precedes that of making a figure having a certain breadth to the body (see illustrations 1. & 2.). Suchchanges in representation, it is thought, indicate a growth in the individuals awareness and in histechnical ability to solve certain graphic goals. I have no problem with that explanation except whenit is used inflexibly as an absolute.

The mention of the overlapping device in Michel Angelos Sistine chapel would appear to be a novelgraphic invention in an effort to depict one object in front of another as, for example where it doesnot take place in the 6 th Century Byzantine mosaic of the Emperor Justinian. One might concludethat in the intervening millennium the use of this device had not been known. That would be anerror. For an indication of that we need only look at the frescos of Massaccio, or the wall painting of Ancient Rome that pre-date the Byzantine by several hundred years. For that matter we may wonderabout the level of graphic sophistication in the artist who chiseled the petroglyph of the two flyingbirds that lies just a few miles south of Santa Fe, New Mexico. While we do not know, for sure, thedate of this petroglyph we do know that, in general, there had been no evidence of a large body of work in the area during our historical period structure which dates from the 15 th century onwardthat would suggest this device had been in general use. Consequently, the conclusion that it was ahappy accident, and a timely fluke, is acceptable. The discovery that one can indicate spatial depthby means of overlap was not taken up then and, in general, not during the Byzantine period and, byan large, not done so until Michelangelo resorted to it in the Sistine chapel with the very notableexception of Massaccios The Tribute Money of 1427 which predates the Sistine Chapel by nearly acentury. This evidence allows us, I believe, to discard the idea of an organic development of graphicrepresentation as a measure of aesthetic sophistication. By the way the cautious use of overlap inMichelangelos Sistine chapel can be seen in those draped and seated or lounging figures whichpunctuate either side of the central longitudinal panel the runs the length of the chapel.


10/33


11/33

Petroglyph south of Santa Fe, New Mexico. Date unknown.

The choice to use overlapping forms and human forms in spiraling or in opposingpositions was made, however, in the following century and it is the job of the artcommentator to try to figure out why that change was made when it was made whenthe option had been there all along.

About a century after Michelangelo along comes Gian Lorenzo Bernini 1598-1680who really dispenses with the containing parameters of the Renaissancecomposition. I do not have the images to illustrate this concept in painting but I doin sculpture with two Davids and one Daniel.


12/33

Michel Angelo: David


13/33

Bernini: David


14/33

Bernini: Daniel, 1650

Certainly one of the outstanding changes in the relationship between the observerand the sculpture is that the politer distance between the two that is established withMichelangelo no longer exists with Bernini who, by his energetic disposition of thebody in motion has now presented the observer with some sort of potential threat. IsDavid going to forget that we, the observers, are not the Goliath he is destined to


15/33

slay? The spectators involvement is much more intense with the work of Berninithan with Michelangelo and, to the degree that that is so Michelangelo is muchcloser to the classical Greek representations of two millennia earlier than he is to theman who came a century later.

I can accept the claim that in the century which followed Michelangelo the zeigeist,to borrow a term from the Germans, allowed this expository, theatrical behavior,perhaps, it was even needed, as some have suggested because of the reformationalthreat the intellectual work of the monk Martin Luther presented to the continueddominance of the Roman Catholic church.

Schematic cube image diagramming the progress of aesthetic approach tocomposition both prior to and during what is known as the Baroque period,generally the 17 th Century. In general, figure one shows the containment of the


16/33

subject matter, figure two illustrates the beginnings of a break-up of thecontainment principle and #3 shows us the dissolution of the containment principle.

Greek Kourii (archaic)

I believe that now I have presented enough data for you to obtain the understandingthat it is not the artists technical ability that makes the difference in his work buthis understanding of what is possibly given his concept of his work. Although, itshould be stressed that there are numerous beginnings of representationalattempts taking place in widely separated sites and at different times. The one thingthat the works such as the Venus of Willendorf, the Laocoon and the Bernini had incommon is that the artist-craftsman had made close visual observations of naturalphenomena. While all these efforts are admirable and the results, in some casesastonishing, we should not suppose that they constitute the major virtue in artistic


17/33

Roman portrait: unknown

expression for were factual visual representation to be accepted as the primary end-goal of such activity we would find ourselves, as did the Romans of the Empire in anartistic dead-end. (see portrait above). As a matter of fact since it seems now quitewithin the human beings grasp to make very exact duplicates of himself in bothphysical appearance and motor behavior that the real purpose of human existencemight come more sharply into focus.

It is in this regard as well, that we must now consider why it is that throughout thehistory of artistic production we see periods where the technical prowess of an artistto represent the reality perceived as the outside world is the supreme measuring toolby which the merit of his work is measured.

On the other hand we seem to detect periods where other considerations dominateand the viewers attentions are drawn to other qualities of artistic production. Itwould seem, then, that fidelity to the appearance of things is really not the only andcertainly not necessarily the primary objective of image making, nor is it, from timeto time, even considered relevant. For that matter, it is quite often considered to beundesirable. It is the reason for these responses that should be of concern to the artcritic and the art historian.

In the conventional view of a linear interpretation of art history the next remarkabledevelopment or, perhaps, some might term it decline in popular expressivelyinterpretative styling was a period called the Rococo. I do not know precisely who


18/33

coined that term nor what exactly he had in mind, but the accepted explanation of the term is to be found in the French word rocaille, meaning shell-like. I wouldsuppose that ones use of any descriptive term would have its origins in onesexperiences and to the extent that ones experiences with shells might have beenlimited to the delicate mother-of-pearl like color nuancing sometimes associated

with shells the appellation is acceptable. If, however, one has ever shaved a beardwith a sharp shell or had ones arm or leg caught by the vise-like grip of a giantclam, or poisoned by the cone shell ones view might be altered and the entirehistory of art changed in its terminology by those experiences.

As we look at the works of Watteau and Fragonard and compare their aspects to thework, say, of Caravaggio a century earlier we can easily detect the dramaticinfluences the Frenchmen accepted from the Italian, but we can, as well, take note of the obvious attempts at what realtors refer to as a gentrification of aneighborhood.

Jean Antoine Watteau (1684-1721); Mezzetin


19/33

Caravaggio( 1571-1610) Amour

Here there should be little argument that the major figure stands out in sharp relief

from the darkened background in an obvious effort to underscore that figuresimportance to the artists intent. It might also be possible to say that the intent of both artists was to picture a moment of seduction. In the Watteau the mode of thisseduction is more by music and verse, which, as viewers, we do not experience, thanit is by the human body, which, as viewers, we do experience at least vicariously inthe Caravaggio.

This reduction in the force and manner of the message of seduction is mirrored evenfurther in the work of Fragonard where the reality of the persons depicted(Minerva, for example) is reduced to the image of a beautiful young girl wearingthe costume of the Warrior Goddess. The Warrior Goddess is not there except by

some highly remote reference.


20/33

Fragonard: The Goddess Minerva

This portrait of exhausted passion as it got played out over the course of two or

three hundred years may have been one of the causes for a turn toward what sometheorists have called the classical Greek and Roman imagery.

Some of this alleged classical influence, very minor indeed in its importance inRococo works, limited, in this work by Gianbaptist Tiepolo (1696-1770), TheBanquet of Cleopatra to largely merely the title of the work


21/33

and perhaps four columns with elaborate Corinthian capitals. Certainly thisCleopatra was not the other Cleopatra and the entire image speaks of a tremendousconceit on the part of its patrons. The major formal accomplishments, by formal Irefer to the means by which an artist achieves his effects and not to the subjectmatter as such, is an astonishingly effective contrast in values in the Tiepolopainting showing Brutus and Asruns Porcena in conflict. (see below) and in theesculpture of Falconet (1716-1791) of the unwise and boastful Milo of Croton. I amcertain that in this last example, there was no moral lesson intended by the sculptordirected toward his audience, on the contrary, the sculptor was probably offering upwhat was intended to be a delightful, dilitantische diversion. so was part of theambient mindset which, in part, may account for this periods political movementsin both France and the United States.

I will have to give Breshnjev credit for his observation to the American Realistpainter Jaime Wyeth not to misjudge the power of an image when Wyeth enquiredwhy this Communist leader was so disapproving on non-objective art. Now, it is upto us as art critics and observers to pursue that suggestion even further


22/33

Falconet: Death of Milo of Croton


23/33

Tiepolo,G.B. Death of Brutus


24/33

Jaime Wyeth: Wolf fish

Some of these so-called returns took on some rather surprising characteristics. There are some historical commentators, art historians, that is, who are content to

refer to the art productions of the 19 th century as the neo-classical; neo todistinguish this (generally the late 18 th through 19 th centuries) from the earlierclassical period, that is the period of Greece and Rome.

I have never been comfortable with the term neo-classical although I have used itas a matter of convenience in casual reference only. My contention is that this entireperiod, which continues, even to day by the way, as an intensely romanticperiodromantic in the classic definition of that term because it refers to amind set distant in both time and space. Many of these works were produced inFrance, and in America as well as Britain referring to an historic period in thecentral Mediterranean area some two millennia earlier. The term classical or

neo-classical can be used mainly to describe the subject matter references and notthe dominating organizational characteristics except with two major exceptions:Puvis de Chevanne and Paul Czanne. Most artists do not seem to care as intenselyabout the classical structural organization of the works they produce as these artistsdo. Here the terms classical and formal tend to merge and to become less clearin the ways in which they are used in discourse.


25/33

Puvis de Chavanne (1824-1898)

Paul Czanne: (1839-1906)The Mill Stone

Whereas the mature work of Puvis de Chavanne and Paul Czanne who admired

him can be said to be characterized by a degree of remote analysis others, such asthe American Benjamin West, the Frenchman Eugene Delacroix and the NorwegianDahl and the German can be to have involved themselves with their subject matterand presumably intended to involve their observers in the subject matter with aremarkable degree of passion. This passion is essentially unclassical and for thatreason alone the use of the term neo-classical should be avoided as it can haveonly a very imprecise meaning.


26/33

Eugene Delacroix, (1798-1863) The Barque of Dante

Caspar David Friedrich, (1774-1840): Two Men Looking at Moon


27/33

J.C.Dahl: View of Bergen

Benjamin West: Moses and the Promised Land

It may seem a bit of a conceptual stretch to compare Wests painting with CharlesSheelers photograph of the Park Row Building in New York, but NOT if what oneunderstands that in both cases the artists have withdrawn an interest in the literarysubject matter and applied it to


28/33

the formal aspects of composition. Or, if some prefer a purer (because it is a paintingand not a photograph) comparison with his painting of the New York urbanenvironment.

Sheeler The Church Street El

One of the characteristics of creative artists, especially, in these later, more recentperiods, seems to be that they may respond with some rapidity and with somepalpable feeling to earlier solutions of other artists, and, in some cases to their own.An example of this last shift is the work of the Norwegian Edvard Munch.

In Munchs portrait of Hans Jaeger he has proved himself quite undeniablytechnically competent. In his portrait of the Dead Mother and Puberty hehad abandoned the use of technical proficiency, which may have, had he employed

it, distracted the viewer from the message of awesomely deep despair in the firstinstance and fearful and questioning confusion in the second. If Munch hascontributed anything creative to the vocabulary of vision it is that the materialevidence of the artists actual physical mobility in placing pigment to canvas is asintrinsically as much a part of the message as any gesture a mime might make intransmitting his meaning. This discovery has, I believe, permanently separatedtechnique as practiced perfection from technique as message carrier.


29/33


30/33


31/33

Munch: Puberty

Now, having broken the connection between artistry and subject matter some artistsfollowed what they thought were some of the logical extensions of this divorce. Oneof them, Barnett Newman, is represented by the following two works:


32/33

Barnett. Newman: Voice of Fire


33/33

Barnett Newman: Being

Well, like the young man standing in a concentrated gaze we may be left considering

what it is we should be looking for and, if nothing else, Newman has left us withseveral questions of a philosophical nature which may lay the ground work for aserious reconsideration of the purpose of art and the nature of aesthetic response.Should one ask the question that if there is little evidence of sensual stimulus in thework of art is it the responsibility of the observer to search for it?

Documents

ORGANIC DEVELOPMENT AND ART STYLE1