Another Duchamp work, L.H.O.O.Q. paints a mustache on the previously mentioned Mona Lisa and calls it art. Via
As always, stay inspired,
-al
Inspired by Lillienne's great Friday blog post on being good enough, our Monday talk will focus on something of a deeper, historical subject. As an Art History student, I am often asked what makes art, well, art. I'll admit that when I first heard this question I was a little peeved, if my professors didn't even know what art was, then why have an entire faculty dedicated to espousing its history? However, over time it really did get me thinking. When I thought of art originally, I thought of an elitist, untouchable, and somewhat boring masterpiece from 300 years ago on the white walls of a gallery or museum, a connotation I think is probably shared by many. Our society values these basically impractical paintings so much that people line up just to get a glimpse of one, but why is there a separation between this "high art" of tradition and the later works from about the turn of the century and on? Well, around the mid 19th century, the winds of change were blowing through the academic tradition of art making. The Impressionists, including Degas, Monet, Manet, and Renoir to name a few of the more famous artists, affected a sketch-like quality to their paintings despite having spent just as much time creating them, and thereby captured their contemporary surroundings. Because of their movement away from the norm, all were summarily ousted from the "high art club". Degas and Manet especially were critiqued for their representation of women, even though they were only representing the women they actually saw in their daily lives; barmaids, ballerinas and courtesans. When the Impressionists exhibited these works, critics actually warned away pregnant women and the faint of heart from looking at their works, surprising since nowadays you can find Degas calendars or Monet birthday cards! Although these artists are loved today, their original scandal having faded with time, they were the beginning of a revolution against the academic tradition. Their unusual formal style moved away from perfect naturalism and set the stage for further abstraction. This later stage of art making, with movements like Fauvism, Expressionism, Futurism, Surrealism and Cubism among other famous abstract artists like Klee, Mondrian and Pollock, is what you might sometimes associate with "art my kid could do" or "why on earth is that woman's nose on the side of her head?". Although many of the abstract artists were classically trained and quite talented at depicting the natural world as we see it, they moved away from the accepted path. But why? In my opinion there are two main reasons for this shift. The first is a matter of technology and the second the time period. With the rise of photography in the 19th century, painters were forced to take an introspective look at their trade. Before this time, wealthy benefactors were the main patrons of the arts, therefore most of the art created was either portraits of wealthy people or commissioned landscapes. But as photography became more prevalent, it eclipsed the painting of portraits and landscapes by being able to capture images more accurately, efficiently and less expensively. Painters then had to express something or paint in a certain way that photographs never could. Obvious brushstrokes, bold colours and distortions of shape and size pushed the boundaries of picture making and made painting a trade in its own right, not only the precursor to photography. Secondly, artists had begun to question art making in their era as well, with the building tensions of the great wars on the horizon and industrialization changing everything at a rate never before seen. This went in two directions, the first being a more lighthearted look at the creation of art and its definition, a good example being Duchamp, who in 1917 famously exhibited an upside down urinal and called it a fountain. He believed that it was the artist's decisions that made something art. Another Duchamp work, L.H.O.O.Q. paints a mustache on the previously mentioned Mona Lisa and calls it art. Via The second group was a bit more morose like Picasso or the German Expressionists. Many of these artists looked back on simpler times nostalgically, wanting to return to the child-like purity of living in the countryside. Their disillusionment brought more drastic abstraction, as the distortion of reality was the only way they could think to communicate the oppressive emotions of their time, forcing the viewer to look past the unusual colours and shapes and relate to an image on a baser level that naturalistic art could never reach. Art was forever changed by this ongoing investigation of its definition, and continues to reflect the tensions of our time. Artists like Duchamp or Warhol, who mass produced images of objects already mass produced, made the viewer more aware of art being an instrument for ideas, more about the context than the actual subject matter. So if you have an idea to express and something to express it with, you can make art! And if you make something we can roll up, Papergirl would be happy to accept it and get your work out there.
As always, stay inspired, -al
2 Comments
Susan
5/21/2013 02:21:22 pm
Very inspiring and enlightening at the same. Well done!
Reply
Michele
5/26/2013 07:43:51 am
Ashley I love how you explored this issue and how! Great writing : )
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
BLOGGERS
Blog posts by our wonderful volunteer bloggers. ARCHIVES
September 2015
CATEGORIES
All
|