Dr Great Art podcast. Episode 22: Representationalism in Art
What constitutes representation in a work of art? The representational nature of visual art is one of its most important, fruitful, and intriguing elements --- yet for very particular reasons.
http://drgreatart.libsyn.com/episode-22-representationalism-in-art
---------------------
This is the script (not a transcript, as I change elements when recording).
Dr Great Art Podcast 22
Representationalism
in Art
Hi this is Mark Staff Brandl, with the 22nd "Dr Great Art"
brief podcast. I hope you enjoy it and come back for each and every one.
Today my Artecdote is a discussion of the meaning of the technique of
making images that somehow look like, visually resemble, other things. You
know, making pictures of things. In short, I am thinking about what
representation represents.
What constitutes representation in a work of art?
Discussions of this usually
begin with the tale of the ancient Greek painter able to create a work so
convincing that birds would attempt to eat the depicted grapes; they also include
a discourse on the original Greek word mimesis,
linking it to imitation. Because our terms for representation commonly stem
from this, we can be led into certain areas of thought. But none of the
available translations are fully accurate, I feel, so I shall bypass this
rather than be bogged down by obtuse argument.
There are arts that embrace representation and those that do
not. The intrinsically representational arts are literature (including poetry,
prose, and drama), the visual arts (including painting, sculpture, photography,
and film), and, of course, other arts close to or between these areas, such as
performance, comics/sequential art, mixed media, and intermedia. That favorite
metaphor for abstract painters, music, is an example of an art which resists
representation.
The representational nature of visual art is one of its most
important, fruitful, and intriguing elements --- yet for very particular
reasons. It is amusing that we always speak as if illusion were truly possible
in art. An argument can be made that this deception seldom, perhaps never, genuinely
occurs. We never mistake art for reality. The disinterestedness of the
aesthetic attitude, as philosophers say, and our basic sanity usually disallows
this. To aesthetically perceive anything is in fact not to be
"fooled" by pretence. We neither bump our noses trying to walk into
Richard Estes paintings, nor rush about attempting to save the victim of a
Hitchcock movie from harm.
The viewer is not over-distanced, of course: I might get
tears at a tragedy, and frequently an excellent painting sends chills of
excitement up my spine. Response to a work of art is in fact multilayered and
complex. Art demands a synchronous, contrary, almost oscillating attention. I
view a work both entranced and consciously considering the skill of the image
or artifice. As an example, trompe l'oeil,
"fool-the-eye" painting, is ironically the opposite of its supposed
intent. Our whole attention is riveted by the accomplishment of the artifice,
which gives us the thrill. It in no way deceives us. If trompe l'oeil wished to really trick us, the only successful pieces
would be counterfeit money.
On the other hand, there is always the danger that simple
emotional escapism can preclude moral involvement and analysis of larger
context; Bertolt Brecht shared this concern, as is evidenced in his attacks on
theatrical illusion.
What makes an image a representation of something? How is it
a "picture?" Just because the artist intended --- or we presume that
he/she did --- a work to be a representation of something, is it? Because the
artist looked at a tree while in the act of painting is that why the piece then
bears the image of a tree? If I notice that a picture reminds me visually of a
human's face, is it a portrait? These points may be of interest in the process
of the artist, but it is obviously untrue to ascribe to any of them the essence,
or interest, of representation itself. Furthermore, I am not talking about
"figurative" art, genre, or simple naturalism. Representation, to me,
to be a source of significance in art, must go beyond that; we must consider
the inclusion of history, meaning, as well as our abilities and inabilities to
recognize it. Indeed, much abstraction is intriguing at least partially due to
its evasion of, dispute with, circulation around representation. NOT
representing something disturbs many, especially when it approached
decorativeness --- which I feel is an incorrect response, but the subject for
another podcast.
There is a famous scientific anecdote of chimpanzees able to
recognize photos of themselves, yet certain humans who had never previously
seen photographs being unable to do so. Even so-called primitive or traditional
societies have highly sophisticated systems of representation that filter their
vision. The convoluted modern "naive" theory is that if an image
somehow resembles a photograph of a certain object --- discounting certain aspects of photographic
vision (such as out-of-focus) --- then it is a representation of that object.
This points, through its obvious simple-mindedness, verging on illogicality,
elsewhere.
My assertion is that representation is largely a matter of
social convention. And this can and is and should be used by artists when
creating representational works.
As symbol shades into "picture" and is culturally
dependent, I can only see representation fully realized and most pregnant with
meaning, as concretized belief. By this I mean something near ideology, although
I hesitate to use that buzzword that describes many things now destroying our
societies. I suppose I mean in some ways Weltanschauung
("world-looking-at," "philosophy-of-life") and Weltbild ("world-picture").
Flippantly, I might say that representation represents
itself. This is not circular like a formal tautology, such as "what you
see is what you see." A picture of the world, or some element of it, is a
rich evocative arena! A picture is open to critical interpretation and bears
the weight of previous and current assumptions concerning the uses (and
misuses) of similar images. Because of this we only see through conceptual scrims.
Our knowledge of an image is a knowledge of the conditions inherent in that
image. For instance, representation from the past reveals to a greater or
lesser extent the superstructure of the society that produced it, which is of
course related to other elements such as but not limited to the economic base.
It also reflects, whether intentionally or not, the mores and values of the
people and society out of which it arose. And yet quite often, and at best, it embodies
critique and alternatives to these very values and beliefs. We artists are at
best both OF our time and AGAINST it!
Jan Van Eyck's painting fully depicts both the religiosity
of his time and -the rising antimedieval materialism that was to eclipse it.
Oscar Schlemmer's work proffers his period's hope for a grander future, yet
also portrays the dehumanization it wrought. Leonardo da Vinci's art, studies
and notes are clearly the quintessence of the Renaissance, yet carry bits of
the Medieval in them, his heritage, and also grand propositions for how things
could be improved. Again, we artists are at best both OF our time and AGAINST
it!
It is credible to postulate that much of our understanding
of visual art is through its ability to give direct expression to the sense of
shared humanity, of shared human experience. But the strongest works are those
that sustain the most complex responses, like life. Therein lies the presence
and vigor of representation: Works of art can be made for interpretation,
cognizant of their status, associations, and cultural situation. Artists have
the ability to wield considerable power through their manipulation of the
multiplicity of references, technical aspects, emotions, and intellectual
assertions of representation to delineate the truth of our experience.
Representation in Art!
Thanks for listening. Podcast number 22. If you wish to hear more cool,
exciting and hopefully inspiring stuff about art history and art, come back for
more. Also I, Dr Mark Staff Brandl, artist and art historian, am available for
live custom Performance-Lectures. In English und auf Deutsch.
I take viewers inside visual art and art history. Entertainingly, yet educationally
and aesthetically, I analyze, underline, and discuss the reasons why a work of
art is remarkable, or I go through entire eras, or indeed through the entirety
of art history, or look at your desired theme through the lens of art history.
The lectures often take place with painted background screens and even in my
painting-installations.
Some recent ones were on the entire history of Postmodernist Art from
1979 through today, on Metaphor(m) in Art History, on Mongrel Art, and on Women
in Art. Once again, I'd like to thank Chloe Orwell, Brad Elvis, and the rock
band the Handcuffs for composing, performing and recording my theme song,
"Shut Up and Paint," a tiny portion of which begins and ends every Dr
Great Art Podcast.
You can find or contact me at
book me at www.mirjamhadorn.com
or on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Minds.co or ello, all as Dr Great Art.
No comments:
Post a Comment