Jeff KoonsArt is a western concept, where the visual representation moved away from the symbolic. The Renaissance began when the problem with symbolic representation had been recognised, this was the beginning of a journey.
Piero della Francesca broke objects down geometrically;
Alberti defined a form of perspective, the tracing of the subject on to a screen (window). Although it sounds like the definitive solution unfortunately this form of perspective does not acknowledge lateral perspective;
Anatomy and figures became a primary area of study, with the aim of overriding the psychological homunculus epitomised by the Byzantines all with the objective of establishing the retinal image. To be able to override the psychological homunculus and produce a human figure closely approximating the retinal image turned out to be so difficult it became the litmus test for visual literacy. So difficult is the psychological homunculus and there by the test of visual literacy, that ever since, art colleges have the study of the human figure at the centre of their curriculum.
The next step along this path is as important as the first and could be considered as modifying the meaning of art. This step is the acknowledgement of the medium. Rembrandt in his later works such as his Kenwood House Portrait and his National Gallery portrait and his painting of Jan Six . These are no longer the drawing and colouring in of the Renaissance they are interpretations in the medium of paint. To the uninitiated this may seem an arty distinction, but an analogy with music may dispel any idea that this is either woolly or arty language. At this point on the journey the mechanics of the Renaissance are no longer the major concern in the same way in which Hendrix’s no longer had to mechanically pick out the notes as a lesser guitarist may. This is where the word art takes on the meaning of something special, where a stroke of genius can be seen to shine out from a smudge of paint. I suspect that the epistemology could bare this out.
However, it is unlikely that Rembrandt would be bothered one iota whether he was called an artist or a painter, though I suspect it would not be academic to Jeff Koons whether or not the $2.16millon Hoover in the Perspex box was granted the label of art, in fact if I may be so bold I suspect the price would fall faster than a speeding bullet if it were suggested that it was not a valid work of art.
Piero della Francesca broke objects down geometrically;
Alberti defined a form of perspective, the tracing of the subject on to a screen (window). Although it sounds like the definitive solution unfortunately this form of perspective does not acknowledge lateral perspective;
Anatomy and figures became a primary area of study, with the aim of overriding the psychological homunculus epitomised by the Byzantines all with the objective of establishing the retinal image. To be able to override the psychological homunculus and produce a human figure closely approximating the retinal image turned out to be so difficult it became the litmus test for visual literacy. So difficult is the psychological homunculus and there by the test of visual literacy, that ever since, art colleges have the study of the human figure at the centre of their curriculum.
The next step along this path is as important as the first and could be considered as modifying the meaning of art. This step is the acknowledgement of the medium. Rembrandt in his later works such as his Kenwood House Portrait and his National Gallery portrait and his painting of Jan Six . These are no longer the drawing and colouring in of the Renaissance they are interpretations in the medium of paint. To the uninitiated this may seem an arty distinction, but an analogy with music may dispel any idea that this is either woolly or arty language. At this point on the journey the mechanics of the Renaissance are no longer the major concern in the same way in which Hendrix’s no longer had to mechanically pick out the notes as a lesser guitarist may. This is where the word art takes on the meaning of something special, where a stroke of genius can be seen to shine out from a smudge of paint. I suspect that the epistemology could bare this out.
However, it is unlikely that Rembrandt would be bothered one iota whether he was called an artist or a painter, though I suspect it would not be academic to Jeff Koons whether or not the $2.16millon Hoover in the Perspex box was granted the label of art, in fact if I may be so bold I suspect the price would fall faster than a speeding bullet if it were suggested that it was not a valid work of art.
Let me say that I make no apologies for making it my aim to bring into question the validity of such claims. But excuse me I am getting ahead of myself. To return to the main theme and in particular the commentators depth of understanding or otherwise of the pre retinal image. An example of the commentators understanding can be seen in Gombrich’s comments referred to earlier in this writing.
Here we have a very clear picture of the commentators and their influence.
Here we have a very clear picture of the commentators and their influence.
No comments:
Post a Comment