A discussion forum for history enthusiasts everywhere
 
HomeHome  Recent ActivityRecent Activity  Latest imagesLatest images  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  SearchSearch  

Share | 
 

 What is Art?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1 ... 9 ... 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
AuthorMessage
LadyinRetirement
Censura


Posts : 3293
Join date : 2013-09-16

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyMon 20 Feb 2017, 17:38

Now I haven't read the whole thread so apologies in advance if I mention something already alluded to earlier but I remember when I worked at the museum one book had mention of "Flint Jack's work". I looked "Flint Jack" up on the internet and found he was a nineteenth century forger of historic or prehistoric artefacts http://yorkshirereporter.co.uk/flint-jack-archaological-forger/ I've wondered if Jonathan Gash used him as partial inspiration for his "Lovejoy" series of novels.

On a slightly different topic, the cat with the child in the Judith Leyster picture is extraordinarily well behaved. My cat would be struggling to get away!
Back to top Go down
Minette Minor
Consulatus
Minette Minor

Posts : 190
Join date : 2012-01-04

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyMon 27 Mar 2017, 22:58


  • If I could chose anything to burgle it would it have to be Uccello's, "Hunt In the Forest", the colours and dreamlike quality  and the bust of Lorenzo de Medici, where he looks as though he's thinking of a funny thought or joke, his face so softened and real. Both at the Ashmolean in Oxford and totally amazing. I saw them first when when so so young and no one told me what I should like and I saw them in October when I was 60 and loved them even more. 
      
Back to top Go down
Minette Minor
Consulatus
Minette Minor

Posts : 190
Join date : 2012-01-04

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyMon 27 Mar 2017, 23:11

Why do so many people become pretenitous about Art which is meant to be for fun and enjoyment not an investment? 
Is it subjective or objective?
But does it matter today when the worst scribblings of Guaghan can go for millions?
I am at a complete loss.
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
nordmann

Posts : 7223
Join date : 2011-12-25

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyTue 28 Mar 2017, 07:41

MM wrote:
Is it subjective or objective?

Subjective, as the length of this thread addressing the subject proves.
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.forumotion.com
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Temperance

Posts : 6895
Join date : 2011-12-30
Location : UK

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyTue 28 Mar 2017, 14:39

nordmann wrote:
MM wrote:
Is it subjective or objective?

Subjective, as the length of this thread addressing the subject proves.

Surely it's both? We judge artistic technique objectively; our emotional response, however, is subjective.
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
nordmann

Posts : 7223
Join date : 2011-12-25

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyWed 29 Mar 2017, 07:55

Temp wrote:
Surely it's both? We judge artistic technique objectively; our emotional response, however, is subjective.

We like to think that we can judge objectively, whether it is the technique employed or indeed any other strictly non-aesthetic aspects to art which we may at times consider. However while this may be true of the professional restorer, or paint manufacturer examining the pigments applied, or the stone mason appreciating a sculptor's clever use of a stone's grain and texture in creating a piece for presentation, the truth is that that which is presented as art, per se, invites an aesthetic consideration on our part which is almost impossible to avoid, even by those listed above who ultimately also have to appreciate that what they are examining has been provided for such examination due to its supposed artistic merit.

The thread title posited "What is Art?" and the basic truth of the matter is that "art" is primarily that which is presented to us as "art", and that this act of presentation carries with it an almost unavoidable inclination to "judge" the work's merits or demerits with that in mind. Hence the unavoidability also of being subjective, even when valiantly trying to remain as objective as possible in the consideration of certain aspects to the work unrelated to its appeal to the aesthetic.

The unavoidability is probably best illustrated when an object not purposely intended to be considered "art" in its manufacture is then held up for consideration in that light. In other words an object which was never intended to be judged in any way except objectively is now presented, without changing one single thing in its design or manufacture, to be judged aesthetically. In response to this invitation, and before one can arrive at a verdict at all, one has more or less to promote one's subjectivity above one's objectivity in order to tackle the exercise at all, let alone arrive at a conclusion.
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.forumotion.com
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Temperance

Posts : 6895
Join date : 2011-12-30
Location : UK

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyThu 30 Mar 2017, 09:15

Minette Minor wrote:
Why do so many people become pretenitous about Art which is meant to be for fun and enjoyment not an investment? 
Is it subjective or objective?
But does it matter today when the worst scribblings of Guaghan can go for millions?
I am at a complete loss.



But is art meant for "fun and enjoyment", Minette? Is the artist simply saying, "Let me entertain you?" Surely it's more! Is it being "pretentious" to suggest that?

I still puzzle over Francis Bacon (the painter, not the other one, although I puzzle over him, too): I loathe Bacon's paintings, but they have a horrible fascination for me - I think because he was unflinching in his terrible vision of what it means to be "human". His dark vision is only one version of that reality, of course. Bacon admitted he never learnt "to draw". Does that confirm his status as another mere "scribbler"?

Scribbling is an odd word to use of Gauguin. I've always been uncomfortable with his work, too. But perhaps discomfort is what art is all about. Superb craftsmanship, on the other hand, inspires joy, does it not? Can acute discomfort be felt simultaneously with joy? Don't know - it's too early for such discussion.

This Telegraph piece has a very odd title: "Is it wrong to admire Paul Gauguin's art?" Gauguin the man could be judged to be a thoroughly bad egg, all right, but does that disqualify him as an "artist"? Can bad (or baddish) eggs produce good art? In fact, are they usually the best at it?

PS At least Francis Bacon's work hasn't ended up as a suitable material for fridge magnets (as far as I know).



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/8011066/Is-it-wrong-to-admire-Paul-Gauguins-art.html
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
nordmann

Posts : 7223
Join date : 2011-12-25

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyThu 30 Mar 2017, 10:45

Buying Gaugin's stuff these days is hardly going to encourage him in his bad habits any more. I reckon Mr Smart can actually rest easy and stop worrying so much. Anyway - Alistair is British so really has more important things to be worrying about at the minute. For one thing, he should probably revise his rather pompous use of "we aesthetes" when starting a sentence, or in connection with anything else for that matter.
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.forumotion.com
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Temperance

Posts : 6895
Join date : 2011-12-30
Location : UK

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyThu 30 Mar 2017, 17:07

nordmann wrote:
Buying Gaugin's stuff these days is hardly going to encourage him in his bad habits any more. I reckon Mr Smart can actually rest easy and stop worrying so much. Anyway - Alistair is British so really has more important things to be worrying about at the minute. For one thing, he should probably revise his rather pompous use of "we aesthetes" when starting a sentence, or in connection with anything else for that matter.


I think he was using "we aesthetes" in a self-deprecating way - perhaps?

As for pomposity, well, we all have our pompous moments now and again. I know I do, especially when I'm trying to be profound about art.

Or profound about anything for that matter.


hamlet
Back to top Go down
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Temperance

Posts : 6895
Join date : 2011-12-30
Location : UK

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptySat 01 Apr 2017, 08:31

Pompous has been word of the week: Minette used it of Ann Wroe's writing style and now Alistair Smart's prose (or a bit of it) has been so critically described. Perhaps these days "pompous" is synonymous with "sounding a bit too educated". But that's no doubt a really pompous remark.

The art world - and the world of art appreciation - is indeed full of  intense and wordy types who often don't have much of a sense of humour - especially about themselves.

The Guardian, ever helpful, has offered this about "International Art Language".

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/jan/27/users-guide-international-art-english

One of the comments after the article:

Guardian Pick

Just for a laugh I put a printout from www.artybollocks.com on the wall for an open studio event. I left the reference to its source at the bottom of the page but some visitors, presumably used to the pretentious nonsense that some artists use, thought it was real. If you haven't visited this site then please amuse yourself by doing so.


https://artybollocks.com/
Back to top Go down
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Temperance

Posts : 6895
Join date : 2011-12-30
Location : UK

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptySat 01 Apr 2017, 10:02

I have just generated this, helped by artybollocks. Can be used for a bit of pottery, a poem or a mural - anything really.

Artist Statement

My work explores the relationship between postmodern discourse and recycling culture.

With influences as diverse as Rousseau and L Ron Hubbard, new insights are distilled from both explicit and implicit narratives.

Ever since I was a postgraduate I have been fascinated by the unrelenting divergence of the moment. What starts out as yearning soon becomes debased into a hegemony of lust, leaving only a sense of waste, with only a forlorn hope of any new beginning.

As intermittent replicas become frozen through emergent and diverse practice, the viewer is left with an epitaph for the possibilities of our world.



Last edited by Temperance on Sun 02 Apr 2017, 10:27; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
nordmann

Posts : 7223
Join date : 2011-12-25

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptySat 01 Apr 2017, 10:10

Temp wrote:
Perhaps these days "pompous" is synonymous with "sounding a bit too educated".

You could be on to something here. Explain what you mean by "too" educated. At what point, do you reckon, is it safe to stop learning so one can avoid this accusation? Or alternatively, at what point should one stop making noises and thereby conceal this excess of knowledge?

And in what way did Alistair Smart reveal he was over-educated? I missed that in the article.

Or maybe "pompous" doesn't mean that at all ....

... we aesthetes obviously know best.
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.forumotion.com
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Temperance

Posts : 6895
Join date : 2011-12-30
Location : UK

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptySat 01 Apr 2017, 11:33

Oh, nordmann, I don't know the answers to any of your - or anyone else's - questions; and I have never pretended that I do.

At what age is it too late to start pretending?

I just thought artybollocks was (quite) funny - my error.

EDIT: I have now added the word "quite"  to my post. Nothing quite like damning with faint praise.   Smile


Last edited by Temperance on Sat 01 Apr 2017, 13:35; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : Put the dash in the wrong place as usual.)
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
nordmann

Posts : 7223
Join date : 2011-12-25

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptySat 01 Apr 2017, 11:44

The bollocks generator is quite funny, I thought too.

The Grapevine Arts Studio in Dublin many years ago, I recall, got into trouble with the artsy set when they mounted an exhibition of the works of several contemporary artists of the time. The exhibition was actually quite impressive, or at least so much was agreed by both the aesthetes and the more commercially minded aficionados who attended. What bugged both of these however was the expensive "programme" on sale which, on the cover, stated that it contained within it vital information if one was to properly "understand" each work on display.

Each item catalogued in the programme was tagged with the line "Grapevine's View: go look at it".
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.forumotion.com
Priscilla
Censura
Priscilla

Posts : 2753
Join date : 2012-01-16

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyFri 14 Apr 2017, 11:23

What is Art? Stunned by the film Andrei Rublev, perhaps I have found an answer. Being abroad when this was shown at Cannes,  I recorded it in ignorance of its quality out of curiosity. This 3 hour revelation of the power of  film making as an art form about an the 15th C life and times of a talented Russian church painter brought me to tears, real an emotional. It must surely rank among the best films ever made. An art film about the brutal environment that shapes a fine artist, it is stunning. Each episode is a revelation by reflecting an aspect that both gut-tightens knowledge about the agony of Russian history and what touched the artist. The final episode of the casting of a great bell in scale, tension and extraordinary detail is a masterpiece. 
 The black and white  torment of emotion  ends with  a detailed scanning of  Andrei's  vibrant and extraordinary  work and fades with a beautiful glimpse of horses in a stream enlivened by a cloudburst. Made in 1966 has this art-film been yet bettered? I think not.
Back to top Go down
PaulRyckier
Censura
PaulRyckier

Posts : 4902
Join date : 2012-01-01
Location : Belgium

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyFri 14 Apr 2017, 22:39

Priscilla wrote:
What is Art? Stunned by the film Andrei Rublev, perhaps I have found an answer. Being abroad when this was shown at Cannes,  I recorded it in ignorance of its quality out of curiosity. This 3 hour revelation of the power of  film making as an art form about an the 15th C life and times of a talented Russian church painter brought me to tears, real an emotional. It must surely rank among the best films ever made. An art film about the brutal environment that shapes a fine artist, it is stunning. Each episode is a revelation by reflecting an aspect that both gut-tightens knowledge about the agony of Russian history and what touched the artist. The final episode of the casting of a great bell in scale, tension and extraordinary detail is a masterpiece. 
 The black and white  torment of emotion  ends with  a detailed scanning of  Andrei's  vibrant and extraordinary  work and fades with a beautiful glimpse of horses in a stream enlivened by a cloudburst. Made in 1966 has this art-film been yet bettered? I think not.

Priscilla,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Rublev_(film)



Kind regards from your friend Paul.
Back to top Go down
Priscilla
Censura
Priscilla

Posts : 2753
Join date : 2012-01-16

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyFri 14 Apr 2017, 23:12

Aye, Paul that gives a taste, thankyou, - but this one is an edited version. In the first episode of the full length one,  his (whoever he is) is also seen filling a skin balloon that soon falls but he does for a few fleeting moments look down and sees far. What each incident refers to is not explained nor always clear but left to the viewer . We are, of course, also being introduced to peasant attitudes to anything new or inventive, religious bonds and a notion that we also  need to see a breadth of landscape to understand he particular.. Much of the film is presented in the broad scenic style of the Breugals - replicated indeed. The full length  edition is stunning stuff.
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
nordmann

Posts : 7223
Join date : 2011-12-25

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyMon 24 Apr 2017, 14:12

Andrei Rublev - the man, not the film - is a very good example of how art appreciation uses standards and rules that often well exceed appreciation as applied to other disciplines.

Rublev in fact can almost be regarded as a blank canvas in his own right. We know precious little about his life or his career. We know absolutely nothing about any icon he ever produced except just the one - the Trinity portrayal now hanging in a Moscow gallery. Yet he is credited with having singlehandedly created the apogee of iconic art to which all subsequent artists in the field could afterwards only aspire. He is credited also therefore with having directly influenced many artists in his wake, some of them who at least have left numerous works behind them which we too can appreciate, and which we often have to admit far transcend Rublev's one example with which to compare them in execution, composition, style and "nobility", as Ruskin would have said.

Without wishing to detract from the esteem in which Rublev is held (as of 1988 he is now a Russian Orthodox saint, no less) it is clear that somewhere along the line the adulation and extreme appreciation afforded the individual went far beyond the evidence of his talent, or even of his character - one confined to a single painting and the other confined to generated hearsay. In fact it is no wonder he presented such a golden opportunity for Tarkovsky to create what is, I agree, a splendid film. The director, after all, had the full gamut of fantasy afforded by myth to work with, and was not inconveniently restricted to the actions, deeds and thoughts of a mere mortal, a restriction within which many of the devices he used in the film would have been rightly dismissed as exaggerations and pretentious conjecture.

The clue as to how this mythical being overtook the mortal man in what we mean when we say "Andrei Rublev" is to be found on the Wikipedia page devoted to him. There, you will find this image of his Trinity ...

What is Art? - Page 15 800px-Rublev_Troitsa

... and it is indeed stunning. But what you will also find are sixteen or so "other works", even though the article itself correctly states that only one can be authenticated. These icons, some of whose creators are known by name, are yet collectively assigned the imprimatur of Rublev, and with this they receive by proxy a portion of the exaggeratedly glowing esteem reserved for that artist alone. This is not to say they are inferior works, or not worthy of comparison with the Rublev oeuvre - restricted to one icon as it is. But it does indicate how, with art in particular, the lustre of a genius's work can, by association, be made to apply to others.

Rublev is an extreme example, though we get the same also with Giotto, Caravaggio, Picasso, Warhol, and a few other artists whose reputations rest with having inspired impersonation (in which the so-called impersonator has often exceeded these "original" works, even in terms of originality). Conversely the "impersonators", by virtue of being automatically linked so closely with that lustre, benefit often within their own lifetimes enormously, both in terms of prestige and livelihood.

Knowing that this process exists, and more importantly how it works, should really call into question the level of appreciation and praise heaped upon both the "genius" artist and his or her declared protegees. In most fields this would be true (literature, for example, has a way of dealing with impersonation that is anything but supportive of the impersonator if the charge is made to stick) and will never judge "genius" purely on the basis of how much impersonation it provokes.

Yet in art this seems to occur with undiminished frequency throughout history. A sign of a unique characteristic of the visual medium? Or a sign of a business unto itself?
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.forumotion.com
ferval
Censura
ferval

Posts : 2602
Join date : 2011-12-27

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyMon 01 May 2017, 20:48

Should I be embarrassed to confess that I did not realise that there is an official Election Artist and has been since 2001? This time round it's Cornelia Parker, best known, to me anyway, for her Exploded shed. As a conceptual artist, what should she offer us, I wonder? Boris's head in a tank of formaldehyde might appeal.

The previous incumbent,  Adam Dant (I'm afraid I didn't know him at all) produced this, The Government Stable - rather Augean than Strong and Stable I would surmise.


What is Art? - Page 15 5970


Could Ms Parker perhaps transform Hogarth's Chairing of the Member into a performance piece with Teresa up atop, flailing around with her knickers on display as the rest of the cabinet scurry away squealing?
I would not begrudge my taxes being spent on that.



What is Art? - Page 15 1031px-William_Hogarth_029
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
nordmann

Posts : 7223
Join date : 2011-12-25

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyTue 02 May 2017, 11:47

Hogarth's characters always came to a sticky end - we can only live in hope.

Who pays the "official election artist" by the way?
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.forumotion.com
ferval
Censura
ferval

Posts : 2602
Join date : 2011-12-27

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyTue 02 May 2017, 11:59

It would appear that this is financed by the Speaker's Art Fund. The financial details are here


The Speaker's Art Fund is a charitable trust. It came into existence in 1929 and became registered as a charitable trust in November 2004.

The Trustees are: The Speaker, the Clerk of the House of Commons and the Director General of HR and Change. The Fund sits alongside the Works of Art Committee and the Heritage and Works of Art Trust as a means by which the House acquires works of art.
Back to top Go down
ferval
Censura
ferval

Posts : 2602
Join date : 2011-12-27

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyMon 26 Jun 2017, 11:06

Were the Pictish synbol stones once painted? If they were, I would like to think that the choice of colours was as tasteful as in these recreations.

What is Art? - Page 15 _96606938_pictishnew

Painted Pictish stones


It would seem to me to be perfectly plausible and I am reminded of the replica of Harald Bluetooth's Jelling stone which is painted in a similar palette.

What is Art? - Page 15 9ff25f547632f3e42d1632acbe78cc11--historical-art-ancient-art
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
nordmann

Posts : 7223
Join date : 2011-12-25

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyMon 26 Jun 2017, 13:18

If the Picts (of all people) didn't paint their stone carvings then they were almost unique in Europe. Right up to "classical" Greek and Roman statuary, tomb engravings etc, we know that all underwent a few coats of the stuff and often in very garish combinations of colours. Even the Newgrange entrance stone - Kerbstone K1 to those of us who once meticulously copied every carved inscription from the site onto life-size images for an exhibition in Dublin many solstices ago - which is believed to be over 5,000 years old, was probably for its first three millennia brightly painted (based on some chemical analysis of its ruts from about twenty years ago) and, we assume, this was religiously (quite literally) re-applied a few thousand times during this period.

It was actually analysis of this process and the materials used based on residue that helped copper-fasten the previously suggested theory that Newgrange had fallen out of use when the "Celts" arrived and remained so for well over a thousand years, until into the early Iron Age in fact, when it again started getting some regular TLC from locals via a few dollops of early Gaelic Dulux.

Once this theory had been established as very likely pre-historic history it opened the door to further informed conjecture regarding just who was living in the area over the 3,000 years in question, and moreover how they interacted with their environment, to a point that we have now a rather cogent and clear idea of the whole sequence, something we didn't really have before we had a look at their paintwork. A lot to be said for paint!

And this is also why we now know that if anyone dares suggest the below is the epitome of "Celtic art" you are quite within your anthropological rights to shoot the eejits!

What is Art? - Page 15 800px-Newgrange%2C_Meath
Acknowledgement: Photograph by spudmurphy - Flickr.com, CC BY-SA 2.0 uploaded to Wikimedia
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.forumotion.com
Meles meles
Censura
Meles meles

Posts : 5031
Join date : 2011-12-30
Location : Pyrénées-Orientales, France

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyMon 26 Jun 2017, 13:52

Putting a coat of paint onto carvings and statuary to make them look a bit more lifelike does seem to be regular thing to do ... weren't the bas reliefs on ancient Egyptian temple walls coloured in, and wasn't the Parthenon frieze originally over-painted too? The statues adorning Roman temples were certainly coloured to make them look lifelike, and even more recently the statuary on medieval cathedrals was also usually painted, often in garishly bright colours ... at least until the Puritans objected (though they were upset by the carved statues and graven images themselves, rather then the colouration).
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
nordmann

Posts : 7223
Join date : 2011-12-25

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyMon 26 Jun 2017, 14:24

Indeed - even these lads were known to have worn a lick or two of Weathercoat in their day:

What is Art? - Page 15 Ad_175752041
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.forumotion.com
ferval
Censura
ferval

Posts : 2602
Join date : 2011-12-27

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyMon 26 Jun 2017, 15:52

Indeed it is ancient as the plastered and ochered skulls from Catalhoyuk and Jericho attest however when it comes to classical sculpture, discussing their original appearance vis-a-vis their present whiteness and how their appreciation has affected, and been affected by, ideas of ethnicity and race, can precipitate a stream of abuse as Prof. Sarah Bond recently discovered when she published this article in an arts journal.

This is one of the more restrained responses but you can imagine how it was treated by Fox News and other even more extreme outlets and the death threats that duly followed
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
nordmann

Posts : 7223
Join date : 2011-12-25

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyMon 26 Jun 2017, 21:42

Why do pink people call themselves white anyway? Pasty pink, maybe, but never white. Never got that one.

Marble is indeed very white, but was painted.
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.forumotion.com
PaulRyckier
Censura
PaulRyckier

Posts : 4902
Join date : 2012-01-01
Location : Belgium

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyMon 26 Jun 2017, 22:08

Meles meles wrote:
Putting a coat of paint onto carvings and statuary to make them look a bit more lifelike does seem to be regular thing to do ... weren't the bas reliefs on ancient Egyptian temple walls coloured in, and wasn't the Parthenon frieze originally over-painted too? The statues adorning Roman temples were certainly coloured to make them look lifelike, and even more recently the statuary on medieval cathedrals was also usually painted, often in garishly bright colours ... at least until the Puritans objected (though they were upset by the carved statues and graven images themselves, rather then the colouration).


And the Terra cotta warriors, Meles meles...


http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/06/terra-cotta-warriors/mazzatenta-photography
https://www.travelchinaguide.com/attraction/shaanxi/xian/terra_cotta_army/face_2.htm


Kind regards, Paul.
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
nordmann

Posts : 7223
Join date : 2011-12-25

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptySun 05 Nov 2017, 09:56

This blog from the Ancient Origins website by Riley Winters gives some examples from The "Tarraco Viva Festival" in 2014 of well-known classical statuary recreated in its original colours based on ultra violet analysis.

What is Art? - Page 15 800px-August_Tarraco_Viva
Picture from wikimedia, courtesy of Mariona Arogay

Since these works were first re-imagined (relatively recently) in their original form with some degree of accuracy it has become common for them to be dismissed as "kitsch", "garish" or "tacky", which I think is terribly unfair on both the artist originally charged with introducing chromatic effect to enhance the work's illusion of animation as well as the originally contemporary viewer's aesthetic intelligence, informed by so many factors which now simply can no longer apply. To dismiss the work in this way suggests, to me, a profound ignorance on the part of the modern viewer regarding the available techniques and tools of the day, the actual context of these works (not just physically but also within broader societal contexts in which they functioned as powerful visual translations of otherwise incommunicable concepts), and of course their prime function - that of any good piece of art - to transport the viewer temporarily from the mundane to the sublime, an avenue very difficult for any artist to locate but, once discovered, one that takes a choice of routes along the way that is only as restricted in its scope as our almost limitless human imagination can impose bounds on it at all. Each statue was composed and presented within a time and a culture in which the creator and the viewer shared the same appreciation of this particular route as expressed through this technique, so to impute that they somehow "lose validity" in this respect purely because tastes have changed over time is rather crass, in my view.

Were I to meet a modern, dismissive, viewer and one from antiquity for whom these highly colourful pieces represented such portals to the sublime, I know with which of these I would much prefer to discuss their actual role in the vexed question of "what is art?".
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.forumotion.com
PaulRyckier
Censura
PaulRyckier

Posts : 4902
Join date : 2012-01-01
Location : Belgium

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptySun 05 Nov 2017, 21:12

And what with the Venus of Milo, nordmann?

Kind regards from Paul.
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
nordmann

Posts : 7223
Join date : 2011-12-25

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyMon 06 Nov 2017, 06:11

I don't understand your question, Paul, but if you're asking about her possible original paintwork ...

It is speculated that this statue originally was part of a series of independent statues and herms around the perimeter of an open air theatre in Milos. This very public setting however could certainly be taken to infer that it once had been ornately painted or, by the same token, it being non-venerational and part of a large series might equally have meant that it never received such specialist attention or could even afford to be maintained if originally highly painted, in which case it may have only been very basically coloured or maybe even not at all.

The pose and craftsmanship of the Venus de Milo suggests it was a pretty standard, if up-market, copy of earlier works, intended to be seen from a relative distance and as part of a larger aesthetic effect involving functional statues-as-supporting pillars (herms) and decorative statues interspersed in the gaps between them. Depending on how the theatre was funded this would have had implications for how much individual attention these elements received, both from the public when viewing them or from their custodians in maintaining them.

The "Venus" appears to have been originally "Aphrodite with an apple", a common motif in its time and already regarded as ancient and "classical" in its own right when the statue was made in around the 2nd century BCE. While not quite in the same category as mass produced porcelain dogs for mantlepieces or garden gnomes today - a considerable amount of work and expertise went into carving it - the much vaunted Venus de Milo may have been composed and presented with similar functional approach to its originality as an aesthetic statement by its producer, and in fact may therefore be an example of a work of art receiving far more aesthetic interpretation and appreciation these days (for various very modern and non-aesthetic historical reasons tied up with French national prestige) than it was ever intended or even expected to receive when it was first produced.
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.forumotion.com
PaulRyckier
Censura
PaulRyckier

Posts : 4902
Join date : 2012-01-01
Location : Belgium

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyMon 06 Nov 2017, 19:52

Yes nordmann it was that what I was asking...

And as usual your take of art goes to the core of question.

"The pose and craftsmanship of the Venus de Milo suggests it was a pretty standard, if up-market, copy of earlier works, intended to be seen from a relative distance and as part of a larger aesthetic effect involving functional statues-as-supporting pillars (herms) and decorative statues interspersed in the gaps between them. Depending on how the theatre was funded this would have had implications for how much individual attention these elements received, both from the public when viewing them or from their custodians in maintaining them."

By reading you I saw it all for me. Those Greeks had indeed a fine taste...if one could reconstruct it tridimensional in a Greek environment as you describes it, I would certainly pay it a visit for the artistic architectual value alone...

Your last paragraph reminds me of your take on Vincent Van Goch on these same boards...some parallels? Wink

Kind regards and with esteem for your replies always of an "haut niveau" (high level?)

Paul.
Back to top Go down
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Temperance

Posts : 6895
Join date : 2011-12-30
Location : UK

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyThu 16 Nov 2017, 09:42

Back to top Go down
PaulRyckier
Censura
PaulRyckier

Posts : 4902
Join date : 2012-01-01
Location : Belgium

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyThu 16 Nov 2017, 22:13

Temperance wrote:
Some interesting details here about the picture that has just been sold for $450 million.

https://www.standard.co.uk/goingout/arts/leonardo-da-vincis-salvator-mundi-five-things-you-should-know-about-the-worlds-most-expensive-a3692751.html


Temperance,

I read it all and it seems to have been in the collection of Charles I (they said in the article). Is that our Charles V? I know that he was Carlos I in Spain, but he was more known as Charles V emperor of the HRE in the Low Countries. And yes in Spain it was the first Carlos, his son Philips II was the second Philip in Spain, while his grandfather was our Philip the Handsome, son of Maximilian of Austria, being if I reckon well Philip I of Spain and married to Juana la Loca.

Now I will have to seek why it is overhere emperor Charles V Wink ?

Kind regards from your dedicated Paul.

PS: Passed all my time this evening on Historum to search together my contributions about a controversy among historians in France about a book of Gouguenheim: Aristote au Mont Saint Michel. Which divided right wing historians and left wing ones in France in a vitriolic confrontation. Yes even honourable historians aren't above vitriol...

No PPS... Wink
Back to top Go down
Meles meles
Censura
Meles meles

Posts : 5031
Join date : 2011-12-30
Location : Pyrénées-Orientales, France

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyFri 17 Nov 2017, 09:18

Different chap to Charles V ... Charles I was king of England and of Scotland (1625-1649), he was the son of James VI of Scotland (James I of England), and so was the grandson of Mary Queen of Scots. He was a great patron of the arts and art collector, but lost his head when he lost the civil war and the country briefly became a republic.
Back to top Go down
PaulRyckier
Censura
PaulRyckier

Posts : 4902
Join date : 2012-01-01
Location : Belgium

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyFri 17 Nov 2017, 20:26

Meles meles wrote:
Different chap to Charles V ... Charles I was king of England and of Scotland (1625-1649), he was the son of James VI of Scotland (James I of England), and so was the grandson of Mary Queen of Scots. He was a great patron of the arts and art collector, but lost his head when he lost the civil war and the country briefly became a republic.

Meles meles,

yes that Charles I...and it is unbelievable what one all recalls when getting older...the old BBC board...Minette starts with a lot of "tam tam" (drumroll? sound? flourish?) a thread about the new BBC series "Charles II"...I specially looked on the BBC for it...and the first I saw was the head of Charles I chopped off...the head on a gitter if I recall it well with all the blood seeping through it...
I said to Minette that I didn't find it not to the BBC standards of before...but a bit mildly...and she wasn't that affirmative as usual too...again if I recall it all well...
And I said it to you already too...the documentaries of the BBC aren't anymore as in the time of "The World at War"...but they are not worser than the German historical documentaries on ARTE...but perhaps the viewers public is changed...and they play what the public is asking...?

And about my Charles V indeed from the HRE...
And you know me after all these years...had to search, who were the others...and as I guessed Charlemagne was the first:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charlemagne
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charles-II-Holy-Roman-emperor
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charles-III-Holy-Roman-emperor
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charles-IV-Holy-Roman-emperor


Kind regards from your friend Paul.
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
nordmann

Posts : 7223
Join date : 2011-12-25

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyTue 24 Apr 2018, 13:38

Here is a guided tour I'd happily sign up to - Australian MA student Alice Procter runs her own "Uncomfortable Art Tours" around such quintessentially "establishment" establishments as the National Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery, the British Museum, the V&A, the National Maritime Museum, and Tate Britain where, along with some insightful commentary on the aesthetics of the works with biographical detail of their artists, she places each piece firmly in a political context which concentrates on empire, discrimination, abuse, xenophobia, and all the other wonderful historical legacies of being "British" that the people who originally established these galleries would have been horrified to acknowledge, let alone contemplate, and definitely would never have envisaged Alice's rather pointed deconstructions of the general patriotic myth they were attempting to present in artistic form.

What is Art? - Page 15 1000

As her promotional posters (example above) show, Alice isn't shy about targeting even the most iconic images of "worthies" from the past, and also provides some rather startlingly obvious but somehow traditionally overlooked aspects to some very famous paintings which might at first glance appear to be mistaken at best, but which then suddenly make sense to the point that one wonders how one missed them before. It may for example sound like stretching it a bit to find evidence of the roots of Brexiteerism in Hogarth's "Rake's Progress", but yet Procter makes a good stab at pointing out the clues hidden in plain sight all along.

Whatever about what one might think of Alice Procter's political viewpoint and interpretation, it is refreshing to see these images - which after all were often commissioned and executed by people who had no compunction about pressing their own political agendas into action through visual media - now being afforded the respect of being addressed and assessed with the level of political analysis they probably have always deserved but rarely if ever received.

The tone of the comments posted below the article in the Guardian website - especially from some people who obviously feel closer affinity to the traditional propaganda than that which Alice is serving up on her tours - speaks volumes in itself for the power of these images to engage the mind even centuries after they first saw light of day. I wish Ms Procter every success in her venture to enlighten visitors to these establishments and maybe help them recognise that they are looking at far more than simply "snapshots" of people from the past. There is so much more trapped in those inks and oils than mere likenesses of famous dudes.
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.forumotion.com
Meles meles
Censura
Meles meles

Posts : 5031
Join date : 2011-12-30
Location : Pyrénées-Orientales, France

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyMon 29 Apr 2019, 09:25

An interesting little snippet in todays Guardian: Francis Bacon's Revenge - recording reveals how artist was rushed to finish paintings

'In 1957 ... under huge pressure from his dealer, Erica Brausen, to finish Van Gogh-inspired works for a London exhibition, Bacon responded perhaps as only a painter could. He delivered the works still wet, so when guests leaned against them at a crowded preview event, their clothes were ruined. "Several people came away from the opening bitterly complaining they had paint smeared all over the back of their jackets … They sent Erica the dry cleaning bill. It serves her right for putting so much pressure on me to finish up." All is revealed in a previously unheard recording dating from 1985. The works were retouched by Bacon the following day.'

Although the event was crowded I'm still surprised people were actually leaning against the works on display. It also occurred to me that that's exactly the sort of thing Tracy Emin or other modern enfants terribles would deliberately do ... but not then offer to retouch the damage but rather leave it as an integral part of the unique 'artistic process', and so then cynically up the asking price!
Back to top Go down
PaulRyckier
Censura
PaulRyckier

Posts : 4902
Join date : 2012-01-01
Location : Belgium

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyMon 29 Apr 2019, 20:30

MM it let me think at Banksy

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-empty-gesture-in-banksys-self-destructing-art-work

So far the nowadays art? Or is it as with the Tulip mania? The collectioners seeing only money and investment till the bubble burst?

Kind regards, Paul.
Back to top Go down
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Temperance

Posts : 6895
Join date : 2011-12-30
Location : UK

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyMon 12 Aug 2019, 20:30

What is Art? - Page 15 EBoQXaHXkAE8SK6
Back to top Go down
Meles meles
Censura
Meles meles

Posts : 5031
Join date : 2011-12-30
Location : Pyrénées-Orientales, France

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyMon 12 Aug 2019, 21:33

While I can recognize all those attending the above dissection, I can't work out who the cadaver is supposed to be. The face looks like that of the actor Timothy West (married to Prunella Scales) but I doubt it's intended to be him. So at the risk of appearing a bit thick I have to ask the question, who is it?
Back to top Go down
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Temperance

Posts : 6895
Join date : 2011-12-30
Location : UK

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyTue 13 Aug 2019, 06:40

I think it is an actor from Eastenders: he appears in a lot of the artist's work. But the cadaver, I guess, is the British body politic. But I'm not sure either.

Isn't D. Cummings, Esq., scary as Doctor Tulp?


Last edited by Temperance on Wed 14 Aug 2019, 05:58; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
nordmann

Posts : 7223
Join date : 2011-12-25

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyFri 23 Aug 2019, 08:56

When it was announced yesterday that the National Portrait Gallery had (at last) "filled the gap" in their "six wives of 'Enery" by finally mounting the recently purchased and restored painting of Jane Seymour, I was immediately intrigued (up to now anyone depending on the NPG visuals might have understandably reckoned Henry had shown a little moderation and stopped at five). This is the painting that up to 2016 existed very much "in reputation and rumour", and I see that the NPG also have declined to expand much on its provenance prior to 2016 on their website. The big question, when it was known to be in private hands (one rumour implied the queen's personal collection, but this collection is rather publicly catalogued so it would have been hard to keep this hidden), was whether it was by Holbein or not? It is known that Holbein of course painted this Wolf-Hall-Gal-Come-Good at the time, but it is also a matter of historical record that this portrait, once it went into Henry's private apartments, then seemed to "disappear" completely - it is not to be found listed among his possessions on his death and there is no account of it having been sold, given away, or stolen during his lifetime (it would be hard to imagine him getting rid of it actually - not Jane). Speculation also included that this absence from his inventory was simply an oversight and that it stayed within the court's most private chambers, possibly to be destroyed later by either Mary or Elizabeth. However most speculation was based on it having survived any "destruction by hissy fit" and simply spirited into oblivion through someone in court giving it away without fanfare or comment at a later time, which up to Charles I was something that could often happen - the monarch not obliged to report to any statutory body regarding disposal of his/her assets however he/she saw fit.

The portrait unveiled yesterday however is not this mysterious Holbein that may or may not have ended up in a rubbish tip, though it is certainly a Holbein, and an unfinished one at that. Which, rather than quelling all the earlier speculation, now simply raises the rumour-babble a notch or two, I imagine.  There are two assumptions based on current analysis, one is that Holbein had been commissioned to copy his own painting for someone else (not unusual at all and a lucrative source of income for the lad)so what you're seeing in this portrait is as close as be-damned to what Henry had hanging in his bedroom, or loo, or wherever he wanted it. The other assumption is that it's unfinished because poor Jane's rather unexpected and sudden exit stage left meant that this copy suddenly wasn't required by its original commissioner - take your pick among the "nobles" who might only have requested a Seymour portrait out of sense of self-preservation or toadiness at the time and would have been equally inclined to lose interest once she snuffed it, and one can also take one's pick regarding who might still have placed a value on the painting to the extent that they took it "as is" and helped preserve it for posterity.

What is Art? - Page 15 Jane-Seymour

In the thread so far we already and frequently discussed to what extent, if any, a "mere copy" could or should be considered "art", and I hope I succeeded in relating my own view that in this argument there is only one criteria that applies - context (how, when and why a copy was made at all). And Jane S at the NPG is a great example of this. A painting that screams at any viewer with eyes to see and the intelligence to know what they're looking at that behind every stilted po-faced Elizabethan semi-profile countenance currently peering at you from within gilded frames located in galleries the world over there is a wealth of history, mystery, intrigue, tragedy, and often (as in this case) hugely effective communication of once powerful emotions and lives lived that these placid and staid expressions now enigmatically belie.

Jane, being a copy and an unfinished one at that, transmits all of the above and probably much more, and in a manner much more effective than any original, however expertly executed by Holbein, could have ever succeeded in bringing to the modern viewer. Whichever way one looks at this, this is "art".
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.forumotion.com
Priscilla
Censura
Priscilla

Posts : 2753
Join date : 2012-01-16

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptyFri 23 Aug 2019, 18:26

Not quite, in my opinion. It is a half finished work with a back story, probably discarded because of the commissioned payment unlikely - copied if you say so. To my mind a work can also be judged by being presented by the artist as being finished. And assessing that point  is actually not easy for the artist.

The above portrait is a reflection of history - yes. Binned or set aside would Holbein have thought it art?

His portrait of Erasmus at the Nat Gal is...… and it's small enough to make off with in a tote..... and by the door too... that is art - and he did five of them with small differences; the artist at work. Would Wuthering heights top the charts had it been only half written? Or a meal prepared by a great chef earn stars if the customer had cleared off before it was done? 

Probably all of this is a quibble but there are some ways of looking at it which make one wonder if it is art.... the artist did not think so, anyway.
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
nordmann

Posts : 7223
Join date : 2011-12-25

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptySat 24 Aug 2019, 07:05

Holbein would have called it "art", yes. In his day the term meant something rather more "artisan" than "arty", and as the product of his labour then it was "art". And nor was it "half-finished" (I, and the NPG restorers, had merely said "unfinished"). In fact as far as the painting bit went it was more or less 99% completed - the bit found missing under analysis during restoration relates to minor adjustments applied over a sealant which Holbein tended to do, which in this painting's case wasn't applied to the whole surface (making the restorers' job just a tad more difficult). But many paintings were sold like that in his day, not just copies. I'd wager if you went to restore all of his Ersamuses you might well find some that had also been sold without the expensive final application too. And a fair few other contemporary paintings in the NPG from the period, indeed.

So yes, I imagine you did merely quibble when you assumed "incompletely applied technique" not to be "art", and that Holbein himself might have agreed with you. And while you're of course free to look at Jane's portrait and dismiss it as artistically inferior on that basis yourself, I think you should be prepared to cast the same quibbly eye in that respect on quite a few hundred more such paintings, all of which are generally classified as "art" and currently hang in public galleries, including in fact quite a high number of portraits in the NPG from around that period. Portraiture as a particular category of the artist's typical bread and butter earnings potential was notorious for the flexibility of its demand, execution, and eventual successful sale - a lot could change in a commission between when it was first undertaken and when the final sale was to be made on delivery.

Which reminds me of advice that I read had once been imparted by the artist John Thomas "Antiquity" Smith to a young John Constable; "Avoid family portraits including children younger than three years of age". This had nothing to do with them not sitting still for the posing bit, and everything to do with the extra cost and labour involved when having to remove them from the composition during the painting's execution as childhood diseases took their inevitable toll, or at least statistically a more inevitable toll as one's commissions increased in number. In Constable's day the cost to the artist in that event could be significant indeed while portraits of the period, as fashions dictated regarding all such commissions, had grown to often enormous proportions involving enough paint to have produced a thousand La Giocondas in earlier times.

At which the quibbler will certainly cry; "But didn't John Constable become a landscape painter?". To which of course the answer is "yes".
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.forumotion.com
Priscilla
Censura
Priscilla

Posts : 2753
Join date : 2012-01-16

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptySat 24 Aug 2019, 11:02

As a non weeping quibbler I would not have said that...….and as a descendant of a family who commissioned a Constable landscape (not one I much like, either, as it happens.) I also am unsure about what artists themselves deem as art.
 A famed locality artist who churned out local scenes ( and good, too) could reproduce them from memory with one hand in a pocket when funds were low so many homes own what they think is an original take on a subject. Actually this is not hard to do. The hard bit is the labour over the first sketch and painting and then = well it is so for me and even more so for him - ever there for recall. I could reproduce a work I did 60 years ago without difficulty...……. but is this art? Not according to my mother who chucked out most of my stuff when I went to work abroad.
Back to top Go down
Meles meles
Censura
Meles meles

Posts : 5031
Join date : 2011-12-30
Location : Pyrénées-Orientales, France

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptySat 24 Aug 2019, 11:43

I'm sure Pablo Picasso could easily churn out variations of his original abstract sketch of his daschund, Lump:

What is Art? - Page 15 Dog-Pablo-Picasso

... I'm pretty sure I could as well, though mine of course wouldn't be "art", or at least not able to command the same price as one of Picasso's "originals".
Back to top Go down
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Temperance

Posts : 6895
Join date : 2011-12-30
Location : UK

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptySat 24 Aug 2019, 12:41

Deleted post as it was quite inappropriate. I shall try to say something more relevant about the interesting Holbein portrait tomorrow. What a prim, disapproving little mouth Jane Seymour had - just like Henry's in fact. No wonder Anne Boleyn was reputed to have slapped her once. Enough - I begin to ramble again! But it's art all right - well, I think so.

I am biased, though: if they found a shopping list scribbled and discarded by Holbein, I should consider it art.
Back to top Go down
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Temperance

Posts : 6895
Join date : 2011-12-30
Location : UK

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptySun 25 Aug 2019, 08:10

This is probably not relevant either, but I shall offer it.

Jane Austen's unfinished Sanditon has been "finished" - and then adapted for TV - by Andrew Davies. Part 1 is on ITV at 9.00 pm. tonight. The original, incomplete novel is undoubtedly "full of imperfections", but it nevertheless helps us in any quest for a further understanding of the artist and of her work (and, of course, of her times). One of Austen's own comments is interesting and perhaps relevant on this thread: she confided in a letter to her niece, Fanny Knight, a letter written only a week after abandoning Sanditon, "Pictures of perfection, as you know, make me sick and wicked."
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
nordmann

Posts : 7223
Join date : 2011-12-25

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptySun 25 Aug 2019, 11:41

There was a technique used in oil painting of the period to accentuate very bright colours so that they could contrast correctly against not so dark backgrounds, especially if the area of bright colour was relatively small but still needed to stand out. This was at a time when the artist was also obliged to finish a work by applying a highly gloss varnish layer over the entire expanse of the canvas prior to it assuming permanent residency in a room in which smoke constituted a huge portion of the local atmosphere (even before human occupants also contributed through exhaling smoke themselves) and in which damp also posed a constant threat to the fabric.

The problem with this layer was that it muted contrasts between light and shade which had been established through skillful application of paint and choice of the pigments it contained by the artist. And one particular artistic representation that suffered enormously was where the artist had tried to communicate the tiny but sharp pricks of reflected light that defined the shape and contours of jewellery, be it metallic or cut stone, and other materials such as silks.

So a good (and rich) artist used a "Plan B" (and probably a few apprentices to actually execute the plan) in which the painting, after this "final layer" had been applied and had dried out, then had this varnish scraped away at exactly those points where the brighter paint beneath needed to be accentuated. This was a painstaking and tedious job, a lot of it having to be done using powerful magnifying lens of the period and an amazingly steady hand. After this then the brighter paint was re-applied where necessary, this time with a slightly different compound that allowed the oil within it to "aerate", which meant that it interacted at the surface with the air to quickly form a "layer" which sealed the more viscuous paint beneath it while presenting a hard water-proof surface at the top. Once this had been done then these areas had one last varnish layer applied before delivery - a thinner one that did not too badly affect the hue being presented. The result was a painting with all the localised contrasts within it preserved and which could still be carefully cleaned with a damp cloth, as paintings were expected to be subject to from time to time.

Jane Seymour's portrait shows that some of the representations of highly reflective surfaces had been done in the above manner but some had not. There are many reasons why this expensive and time consuming process might be avoided altogether by an artist, but normally where it is seen to have been started but then abandoned along the way the assumption is that the terms of the commission had suddenly changed. We know Jane died rather more suddenly and earlier than everyone had expected (or at least hoped), and we know that many of the more expensive portraits of her would have been commissioned for reasons of "political astuteness". So we can certainly surmise that this painting was in the process of being completed when her death changed everything - and if it was bound for delivery to a particularly astute political player of the day then it makes a lot of sense that Holbein would have received instruction to wrap it up "as is" and the patron reserve the expense of completing the process for a new commission if and when a "new" queen came along. It being of Jane, of course, and given the king's publicly stated feelings on the matter, it would have been rash indeed to abandon the commission entirely or re-use the canvas for another subject, at least until everyone knew the new lie of the land after her demise.

So, while it is certainly true that the painting, if viewed through the eyes of someone who knows their history, relates a slice of that history in very succinct and eloquent ways (as P stated above while still questioning its artistic value), it is also true that the painting, in relating this little vignette from history, also informs the viewer of so much else regarding human nature, even that of the artist in this case. If one also factors in some knowledge of Holbein's semi-subversive relationship with the rich and famous who commissioned him to paint their likenesses, then even this technically incomplete rendition of Jane Seymour in oils probably contains a key indicator of Jane's true character that no amount of written historical discourse could hope to impart as readily.

Holbein is quoted as saying that, with every subject whose likeness he was expected to convey on canvas, there was always one feature of that face for which he reserved a right to interpret and portray as subjectively as he pleased. It could be anything - the eyes, the hairline, the jaw, the nose, and very often the mouth. And in Jane's case it was most certainly the mouth. A cartoon of JS in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna (which up to now was the only Holbein image of her on public view), executed while she was still a lady-in-waiting for Anne Boleyn, has the same thin lips set almost as a caricature of pettiness combined with stubbornness, which has also been seized upon by historians in the past as a vital clue to the girl's actual character, or at least as interpreted by someone who knew her a little better than through mere reputation and was known not to be afraid to incorporate his subjective interpretations into his portraits.

So it is nice now to see a corroborative image enter the public domain - and if art, like good poetry, is most successful when it imparts the most information and effect to the viewer through the most economical expression the medium allows, then to discount this painting's artistic content would require a lot more justification than simply saying "well, it's not quite finished, is it?".

In short, I agree with you Temp on both points. The lips deserve special attention, and it's art.
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.forumotion.com
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Temperance

Posts : 6895
Join date : 2011-12-30
Location : UK

What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 EmptySun 25 Aug 2019, 13:52

I knew nothing about those technical details, nordmann - absolutely fascinating stuff - thank you for bothering to give us such an interesting explanation. I always did say you reminded me of Johann from Museum Hours. He worked at the Kunsthistorisches Art Museum, didn't he?

I mentioned the film, Museum Hours, in my deleted post yesterday evening, but I shall repeat here that I do recommend it. One reviewer commented that it was "a lovely ode to art and friendship." Amen to that.

PS I can't remember if the Jane Seymour portrait was briefly shown in the film. I shall have to watch my DVD again this week and see if I can spot it.

PPS The eyes have it in the portraits of Cromwell and More. I put this to the historian Derek Wilson a few weeks ago - he has written a biography of Holbein - but Wilson said I was wrong. I don't think I am.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




What is Art? - Page 15 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   What is Art? - Page 15 Empty

Back to top Go down
 

What is Art?

View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 15 of 17Go to page : Previous  1 ... 9 ... 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Res Historica History Forum :: The history of expression ... :: The Arts-