|
|
|
 |
|
|
WD_157/ 2005
(  Satoshi Kinoshita )
| Series: | Works on paper: Drawings 2 | | Medium: | oilstick on paper | | Size (inches): | 25 x 19.9 | | Size (mm): | 640 x 510 | | Catalog #: | WD_0157 | | Description: | Signed, date and copyright in pencil on the reverse.
what is art about?
Most artists have a vision that they need to express. This vision usually can't be explained adequately with words - art has its own language and vocabulary, of visual ideas, form, color, space, art history, emotions, spirit - which need to be learned by artist and viewer, in order for us to know what an artwork is "about." By educating our eye to see relationships of color and form, and art historical references, we can learn the language of art. This may not be crucial to enjoying art - but, as with other creative fields, such as music and literature, the more we know about what we are looking at, the more its meaning will be communicated to us. This can be done by looking at a lot of art - many different kinds - for a long time; as well as learning about the history of art, in books, gallery and museum lectures, etc. It is often thought that art is one of the inessential frills of life, that its purpose is simply to decorate a room, or to be beautiful. But the best art deals with the essentials of life - whether it be love, death, war, human relationships, or affirmation of the human spirit. Contrary to Madison Avenue, the most important things in life are intangible, most of us would agree - love, friendship, personal sacrifice, honor, etc. - things of the spirit. Though, in the beginning of the 21st century, many of us feel that we are technologically and materially invincible, the truth is that we still don't know the answers to the eternal and most important questions: Who are we? How did we get here? How were the universes created? What happens when we die? Life itself, and consciousness, are both awesome mysteries, that fill us with wonder, if we stop to think about them. The job description of an artist is to make us look, think, and feel, by whatever means necessary, and according to the particular artist's training, vision, experience, and point of reference.
Art can be much more than a rectangular painting on a wall, or a piece of sculpture on a pedestal. Since the early 20th century, art has continued to evolve more forms, many of which cross over old or arbitrary barriers of labels and categories. Like today's music, contemporary art wants to mix forms together, and create entirely new ones. If we ask why, can't we also ask, why not? The main objective, and distinguishing characteristic, of good art, is its expression - what it is "saying." To accomplish this communication, artists need to create freely and question assumptions about art, and about themselves and their audience.
Traditional paintings (until the 20th century) tried to be an illusion of reality - as though the viewer was looking through a window into a space or the outside world. Techniques used to create this illusion of reality were perspective, foreshortening, shading to create three dimensions, and other spatial cues to give the illusion of spatial depth. In the late 19th century, artists began to put aside this need for illusion, and with Cubism in the early 20th century, created collages which had no pretensions of three dimensionality. On the contrary, they contained real pieces of fabric, chair caning, cut paper, etc., placed in a flat pattern with no attempt at perspective or other illusion of spatial depth. Paradoxically, they were not "realistic" - yet they were what-you-see-is-what-you-get - no illusion of reality - rather, the concrete reality itself. Which is more real - the illusion of a landscape on a flat surface, or a non-illusory arrangement of colors and forms?
Also, in the 19th century, paintings were about what they were about - a landscape was just that; a historical or religious painting had a clear meaning related to the historical or religious event depicted. Or, they could have symbolic intent - 'vanitas' still lifes, for instance, were meant to contain symbols representing human mortality, and hence the temporal vanity of physical beauty, etc., in the face of eventual death, and presumably, being judged by God. In modern and contemporary art, the work may not have a "subject" in this sense, if it is abstract or non-objective. And often, the work is about art itself - that is, it is related to other art of the past or present; or its "subject" is the nature of art - what is art? what is perception? and other questions related to the nature of art in contemporary society (as in conceptual art). So often, I've heard other artists talk about one of their works by saying, "I was looking at ___________, and/or, I was thinking about __________." The first blank could be filled in with another artist's name (Picasso for instance), or a type of art (for example, Italian primitive painting). The second blank could be filled in with any number of things in the visible or internal world of the artist - from other art, to the physics of visual perception, to natural processes, to societal issues, and much more.
There is also a difference between subject matter and content in modern and contemporary art. Subject matter means what the work of art depicts, that is, what the image is. Content means what the meaning of the work is. This can be illustrated with a literary example: In the novel Moby Dick, the subject matter is a man against a whale. The content would be the extended meaning of this subject - all of Melville's symbolism, metaphor, etc. about man's existence, his relationship with nature, etc. A more contemporary example would be One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, by Ken Kesey. The subject matter is patients in a mental hospital. The content/meaning is Kesey's view of the individual in society, the freedom of the human spirit, etc. In visual art, the subject matter in the Abstract Expressionistic painter Mark Rothko's work is rectangles of color; its content is related to spiritual concerns.
The style of artworks is a relatively superficial issue, and style labels are often inaccurate and misleading. Most artists do not fit neatly into categories of style; plus, they grow and change as artists, moving among stylistic areas freely, as many musicians do. However, there are some characteristics to certain art movements, even though some of its members may not have these characteristics. For instance, Impressionism can be said to be about color and light, though the style of Degas is very different from Monet or Renoir. Expressionism can be said to be about emotion, and perhaps suffering, though styles varied among expressionistic painters. Cubism was about space and composition, though it had several types - analytical, synthetic, and collage. Surrealism tended to be about the unconscious, fantasy, dreams and other Freudian imagery, though its artists produced wildly divergent styles of art. The Abstract Expressionists tended to deal with abstract imagery and spirit/emotion, though their work varied from Jackson Pollock to Barnett Newman to Clyfford Still.
Much modern and contemporary art has art as its subject, or at least many works comment on past or present art. Edouard Manet, in the mid-19th century, when modern art is said to have begun, used the compositions of Old Masters in his paintings, for instance of Giorgione. His paintings, which shocked the critics and the public because of their boldness and frankness, actually were meant to refer back to these painters of the past. Painters imitate other painters to: 1) pay homage; 2) learn about painting; 3) for compositional or subject ideas; or 4) make a comment or express a visual or intellectual idea. Many modern paintings are about painting - composition, color, paint handling, imagery, art history. Art comments on other art - like a conversation - over time. Like musicians, artists influence one another greatly, in a mutual fashion, answering one another through ages and places.
Music can just be about itself - how "great" it is - whether classical, jazz, rock, blues or world music - its technical and expressive excellence is the subject. When we hear great music, we know this - it is its own justification - it just IS. It doesn't have to be about something - we can enjoy a Beethoven symphony even if we don't understand what it is about - though knowing surely would enhance the music for us. I remember when the Beatles first arrived in America - the reporters kept asking, "What do you call your haircut?" One of the Beatles responded, "George." And I remember when a viewer asked an artist friend what her yellow abstracted sculptural form was; she replied, "It's yellow." Art and music don't have to have names or subjects - they just have to be listened to and looked at. Their meaning may not be expressible in words - that doesn't affect their value. Sometimes, the greater the music or art, the harder it is to express just why it is so great - because it is just beyond our grasp, not easily categorized or understood, like Cezanne. And sometimes it doesn't matter what a work of art is about. It's like a great rock song, where the lyrics are barely distinguishable - we may have a vague idea what the song is about - but it really isn't that important. What interests us most are the "beat," the sound of the instruments together (the arrangement), the melody, the vocals, the harmony, the cool guitar riffs, and the main impact of the song on us - its excellent expression, its power, its ability to move us, etc. Sometimes the subject of a song is very important - for instance, Bruce Springsteen's Philadelphia. But just as many times, the subject matter is not as important as the music or artwork itself. It seems that this is a modern phenomenon - perhaps the self-consciousness that arrived at about the same time - Freud, Darwin, Einstein - all explaining our place and configuration in the universe, making us examine ourselves.
Art is often about the visual elements: color, structure, and the forms themselves - whether organic, curvilinear, gestural, or geometric, and the underlying structure of the composition. (See Illustration: the leaves and stems of this lily are beautifully curved; in a painting or photograph, it is these curves which are the subject, whether they represent something actual or not; and the visual relationships between the stems and leaves which are expressive.) Mondrian is an example of a modernist who wanted to use the eternally beautiful forms of geometry (rectangles) in his work, and have the beauty of mathematical proportions in the spacing intervals of the forms. There is also much beauty in visual relationships in art - such as Mondrian's mathematical proportions, or color relationships. This is like harmony in music - made up of different voices, instruments and notes - and is as powerfully expressive as subject matter or words - maybe more. For example, close vocal harmony in music - whether Boyz II Men, the Beach Boys, or celtic music - is a thrill for the ear to hear, not easily translated into words, and also has an effect on the heart of the listener. In art, relationships of proportion, color and forms to an educated eye are just as eloquent. And it can be a simple relationship - Beethoven's Evening Sonata is a simple melody, a great guitar riff is often extremely simple - this doesn't alter the quality. In art, Rothko's rectangles of translucent color are pretty simple, but they conjure up the feeling of stained glass windows with light pouring through, a powerful spirituality.
This excellence of technique and expression in the arts is its own reason for being - it adds to life and enriches us immeasurably. I believe that this kind of excellence is itself an affirmation of life, and inspires us to aim for the same excellence. This is another reason for Cezanne's greatness - his enormous effort to produce the greatest paintings possible - they are our best hope made visible, the best in us. Another example is the film Schindler's List, which made something meaningful out of perhaps the worst period in history, making something positive come from the worst negativity and destructiveness. Another powerful artwork is Maya Lin's Vietnam Memorial in Washington, DC. A young student at the time, she designed something that managed to do the impossible - create a catharsis for Americans that allowed healing for all of us after the Vietnam war. Many artists over the centuries have continued to create in the most difficult of circumstances - through wars, poverty, illness, even blindness. The German Expressionist Emil Nolde painted secretly during the Nazi era, since his work was declared 'degenerate' by the Nazis. Degas and Monet both continued to paint after they were almost blind; Renoir continued to paint his happy pictures after his hands were so crippled with arthritis that the brush had to be strapped to his wrist to paint. Van Gogh attempted to continue, even though very few were interested in his works - which sell today for many millions of dollars. Cezanne, Rembrandt and many others painted in obscurity and sometimes poverty, and painted with much love and devotion, leaving us works that people wait many hours in line to see. There are many artists now who do the same.
So - finally - art to me is not a frill. It often deals with the most important issues in life, and can affect us very deeply, especially noticed in music. It inspires us to positivity - brotherhood - survival - understanding. Leonard Cohen, poet and songwriter, in his song Suzanne, says that "there are heroes in the seaweed, there are children in the morning, they are leaning out for love and they will lean that way forever." Perhaps this sounded corny to many, prior to September 11th. Cynics can no longer say that it is every man for himself - and we have seen exactly why it shouldn't be. Beauty and truth (art) are not only necessary for survival - the truth is that the alternative reality is not livable. We have always had a choice - we do now too.
-www.ndoylefineart.com/whatisartabout.html
| | | send price request |
|
|
|
|
|
Gallery opening
500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1820 (Between 42nd and 43rd)
...
|
|
more
|
|
