The Story in Painting

[FallenGodX11]

I've been trying to search for some contemporary artist who do narrative story telling like the old masters, but unfortunately I've found very few people who do that in the fine art world these days. I can name a few like Graydon Parrish, Morgan Weistling, Steven Assael, Donato Gianocola and etc. but it's only a handful in the fine art world. There are people like the classical realist painters, like Jacob Collins, Adrian Gottlieb, and Jeremy Lipking, who are getting all the technical stuff of the old masters, but they are limited to what they can set up or see. In the more contemporary side there are painters who make photo realistic pictures, but they aren't really doing anything amazing with it and they aren't telling stories either, and to make a painting photo realistic seems to defeat the purpose of what a painting is suppose to do. Why make it realistic when you can just take a photograph? There are other painters who are mixing with the modern to get an interesting style, but it's mostly for a visual effect not really story telling either like Alex Kanefsky.

It seems that story telling in art has died off since the end of the 20th century. Most of the artist during that time went to illustration, doing illustrations for posters, book covers, and magazines. However as the photograph and printing got better illustration also changed. It didn't required that much realism, but it still required simple graphical illustrations to amuse the readers and to illustrate an idea. Right now it seems that concept art and entertainment seem to be the main story driven art. Will the story in painting survive, or will it die off? I hope it survives because I want to do paintings that tell stories and amaze people, but there aren't many who are doing it.

[Kagemusha22]

There's a story within everything, you've just got find out what it is.

What's her story?
http://blog.pennlive.com/iridescentartnews/large_jenny-saville.jpg
Why does she appear downbeat, exhausted, is she injured? Is there even a reason or is she just posing?

This image features Stanley Spencer and his wife.
http://www.ago.net/assets/images/assets/past_exhibitions/2007/spencer.jpg
It's trying to illustrate the tension within their marriage, some biographers believe the marriage was never consumated.

Story-telling in Fine Art has simply become more abstract in it's definition, and autobiographical rather than illustrating an idea that someone's commisioned the artist to do. (There is already thread about Narrative, around a few weeks ago)

[Chris Bennett]

By way of answering your question I will open things up a little by standing it on its head. Consider this vernacular photograph below. I have offered two ways of how I read its 'story'. The power seems to derive from it not being overt:

682682

At first glance I think "oh, that's an arresting, strange image". But then I find myself irresistibly drawn to what makes it so. And then the magic starts to happen.

Notice how the window quarterlight is open on an open door that opens the photo itself. The way the woman's elbow 'mirror echos' that quarterlight along with its resemblance to the shadow of the window-winder on the left. How the woman's cigarette echos the slant of the quarterlight.

Then there is that ominous sickle shaped shadow cast from the door lever that eerily steers us up to the figures and their opposing gazes - the overtones of that shape suggest that the woman might just that moment have had an uncomfortable premonition of some kind.

The door lever and the widow winder also stand as analogous for the people themselves - the woman's agitated pose resembles the window winder and the calm, arched stance of the man is seen in the inverted shape of the door handle. Perhaps he is her problem and she has just realised it?

The small little button rising out of the big bottom shadow....is us, the viewer - peeping into this world caught as shadows on a light sensitive piece of paper. A metaphor, meteor-like, fallen from serendipity.


Then again:

Who has photographed it? It's a very subjective image: someone left in the car watching from a distance. It looks like the couple have moved some distance away so as not to be heard - but there's no eye contact between them, no communication taking place. I'm getting the sense of a child left in the car while Dad lectures (look at the stance: trying to be assertive by leaning forward slightly but undermining it by putting his hands in his pockets) Mum again - but she's just leaning against a wall, smoking a cigarette and pretty much ignoring him. It's a family holiday that nobody's enjoying.

[Shehaub]

Here are some contemporary story tellers that I enjoy.

http://www.johnpitre.com/
http://www.glassonion.com/
http://www.jonathonart.com/
http://www.scottburdick.com/

I can relate to what Fallengod is saying. I don't think storytelling is gone, as has been demonstrated by the above posts, but I do think it seems to be missing in a lot of todays art.

My theory is that "the story" was pushed aside as we lost touch with romantic ideals. Hard work, sacrifice, compromise and loyalty beyond reason became themes of the past while self expression took its place in popularity. (For example "reality-TV") With "get rich quick" and "easy money" as a model for worthy aspiration, the story doesn't really have time to develop. IMHO art often reflects the state of mind of the general public. A lot of art shows the "instant gratification" state of mind that is prevalent in our society. We value convenience over quality and speed over the journey. We replace things instead of repair them. We use plastic containers instead of glass so we can throw them out instead of refill. Very little in our current society has the opportunity to get old enough to hold a story. We even dispose of our elderly in nursing homes.

If my theory is correct, as we lose fascination with instant gratification and start rediscovering some old ideals, we will begin to see "the story" making a comeback in fine art. The great stories of the future will get their start as the soon-to-be storytellers witness the stories they will tell. Meanwhile, those who dedicate themselves to craftsmanship will carry the tools the storytellers need to tell their stories. Those who love to tell stories will pass on the art of storytelling. I believe that it will come together again, eventually.

[Elwell]

When looking at the narrative painting of the nineteenth century and earlier, you have to remember that the context those works were created in was completely different than today. For the last hundred years or so, people interested in large scale visual narrative have become filmmakers, not painters.

[bcarman]

I'm thinking you will need to define your idea of storytelling. Does storytelling mean that an artist has a story fully worked out in her head? Does the story begin only once the painter has started painting? Is the story implied or overt? Can it be storytelling if the narrative of the story is not obvious? I'm not sure artists like Lucian Freud ever had a story in mind while painting but certainly when I stand in front of one of his paintings I am overwhelmed by the sense of voyeurism; having interrupted a story in progress. If I find a story in a piece does that mean that the artist is a storyteller? I apologize for asking so many questions and having no answers but sometimes the questions are more interesting than the answers.

[FallenGodX11]

I'm thinking you will need to define your idea of storytelling. Does storytelling mean that an artist has a story fully worked out in her head? Does the story begin only once the painter has started painting? Is the story implied or overt? Can it be storytelling if the narrative of the story is not obvious? I'm not sure artists like Lucian Freud ever had a story in mind while painting but certainly when I stand in front of one of his paintings I am overwhelmed by the sense of voyeurism; having interrupted a story in progress. If I find a story in a piece does that mean that the artist is a storyteller? I apologize for asking so many questions and having no answers but sometimes the questions are more interesting than the answers.

Hmm... interesting questions about the notion of story telling that I never really thought of. I have thought that storytelling in painting would have the whole idea worked out in an artists head. That an artist would first decide what he or she wanted to paint and they would do research and reference things for their paintings to work out the whole painting itself. I also thought that the story begins before the painting to work out the idea. I've mostly thought that the stories should be overt to make a clear understanding and communication, but also implied as revealing everything would just make a painting boring and some things the viewers should figure out for themselves what the painting is. For the painting to be obvious for storytelling would be two sided for me to know it is a story telling piece or not. If it's not obvious then I would need to know what the paintings is about at least and know the artist too before I can make I assertions. But some paintings I am just desensitized to because I am already used to seeing them in a certain way. Like figurative painting in general now just seems to have nothing to say much. A lot of figurative artist just stage the model and they can only paint what they see and It doesn't really seem like storytelling to me. If I find a story telling piece does that mean the artist is a story teller? I wouldn't generalize it that much. When they do a portrait or still life it may not be so. If I said, yes then it would imply a majority of an artist's work is storytelling.

[bcarman]

I can understand your point about academic figurative art. Storytelling is not usually the point and very few artists I can think of take it beyond study and the wow factor. There are of course exceptions.

When I do a book cover or an illustration for a story or even a comic the story is either given to me or I create the whole story for the piece. I love illustration. I love coming at problem set up by another author or by myself. But when I do a painting I come at it from a different place. If the whole story is worked out in my head I see little reason for doing the painting. Now this is my particular take, not a universal truth. I relish the idea of starting with very little and having this dialogue within my head and with the painting I am making. Often a story will develop but I am never disappointed when one does not reveal itself. I do believe, however, that successful pieces (again for me) can spark stories in the heads of viewers. I enjoy it when my piece is a catalyst releasing thought and narrative for other people. In this case I believe even if I am not a classic storyteller that I have pricked someone else's imagination thus releasing a story. At times that is even more important to me.

[Zeddish]

I try to draw with a story in mind, usually. Almost like I have a written scene in my head, and I'm trying to illustrate it all in one frame.

[FallenGodX11]

I've been also thinking about the functionality of stories in general. Why do we have stories? Why do people make stories and Why do people listen?

We have stories to entertain us and gain experience. We need entertainment to pass the time and alleviate boredom. When we have nothing to do in our lives or there's nothing going on we listen to stories about other people in other places to gain experience. People tell stories to inform others about the nature and realities of life or the possibilities and hope. Like Homer's Illiad tells the tales of the tragedies and lessons of war and the Ugly Duckling gives the possibilities of some one turning ugly to beautiful. Stories can alleviate the pain of reality in the time of crisis by giving people hope or record the dismal realities of the times like the Grapes of Wrath in the Great Depression era. Stories can stimulate pleasure like erotic tales and passion like in romance genres.

[Kagemusha22]

When looking at the narrative painting of the nineteenth century and earlier, you have to remember that the context those works were created in was completely different than today. For the last hundred years or so, people interested in large scale visual narrative have become filmmakers, not painters.

True, although the difficulty with that though, is how complexed the process of filmmaking is. It can take months to years simply for pre-production before even getting behind a camera.

And then there's a whole plethora of difficulties with filming, which this video points out the technicalities of;
oQB2mL4UBvs

Whilst a high quality, well informed image (or images) with narrative can be created within a day to a week. (A week for me because I'm slow, and useless...)

Though that isn't to say you're not right, just that filmmaking can be no more of a straightforward solution.

[bcarman]

I'm not sure the point was that filmmaking is a more straightforward story telling device. Filmmaking has become the artistic medium with the most impact. Dealing with a graduate program and with other artists in academia causes me to think about this all the time. They make art to make an impact yet their audience seems to be those who attend galleries and lectures; those already sold on what the artists are trying to champion. Filmmaking has a much wider audience which includes the general public. Storytelling has always been used in a didactic way. The Bible tells stories to teach. We tell stories to our kids to teach etc.. The idea that filmmaking is time consuming and difficult does not diminish the fact that as a storytelling device it has the most impact and reaches the largest audience. With the internet that is shifting and new doors are open to artist who tell stories. The future looks exciting for storytellers.

[Kagemusha22]

I'm just saying that if you were concentrating on becoming a storyteller, there is a variety of difficulties involved with filmmaking that could be averted within different media. (Whilst new ones arise) It all depends on what medium you want to tell the story through, as Elwell said the popular choice for the modern story-teller is filmmaker, and as you said it reaches the greatest audience. But as my comment above is trying to point out, there is a level of difficulty in execution, and limitation within the realms of filmmaking. Whilst a novel has the limit of the author's imagination (but won't grab the attention of an audience size, that cinema can muster), and a painting's limits are dictated by the skill of the artist.

None of the mediums are better, or more straightforward than the other (as all require a degree of toil and labour), they all have their strengths and shortcomings.

[Elwell]

I'm not sure the point was that filmmaking is a more straightforward story telling device. Filmmaking has become the artistic medium with the most impact. Dealing with a graduate program and with other artists in academia causes me to think about this all the time. They make art to make an impact yet their audience seems to be those who attend galleries and lectures; those already sold on what the artists are trying to champion. Filmmaking has a much wider audience which includes the general public. Storytelling has always been used in a didactic way. The Bible tells stories to teach. We tell stories to our kids to teach etc.. The idea that filmmaking is time consuming and difficult does not diminish the fact that as a storytelling device it has the most impact and reaches the largest audience. With the internet that is shifting and new doors are open to artist who tell stories. The future looks exciting for storytellers.
Exactly. My point was that the social/cultural role of narrative, multi-figure, didactic history paintings in the 19th century was subsumed in the 20th by cinema.

[kev ferrara]

Those who essentially controlled elite cultural discourse through the 19th century into the 20th century, in reacting to the horrors of war between empires (climaxing with WWI), sought to eliminate mythic elevations of conflict by artists. This "uncooling" of the epic was already in full sway by the time the Impressionists ran with that ball, which is long before motion pictures were invented.

The natural human desire for heroes and vicarious adventure then flowered in popular culture, and, actually, in many ways caused popular culture. (Before this political reaction, any culture was just culture. Shakespeare cannot be classified simply either as great art or "popular" art, proving that, intrinsically, there is no necessary distinction between the two categories.)

At the height of the popularity of film, the Depression, the American Illustrators were also still at their height, as was Mural Painting (Not just WPA stuff either).

It was the reality of WWII and the new portability of camera technology that finished off adventure illustration. People had seen dramatic reality and the burgeoning newsmedia could provide it. The reality seemed too important to fantasize. Plus, the cost of hiring Illustrators compared to photographers was significant. Plus the women's magazine were now more interested in selling product than telling stories because ad revenue overtook subscription and sales revenue.

Which is to say that it was The Reality of War and The News that brought it into your home which subsumed the very idea of making myths of violence. Which is why from the 40s noir to the 60s anti-establishment movies, the feeling was anti-mythic, and more pseudo-journalistic or gritty. This is the ethic of the Journalist combining with the cinema-ethic of the myth maker.

But the societal role of grand epics is rarely historical. More usually it is simply sensationalism. And people will always seek out sensation, whether a huge scary painting, a explosion filled movie, a virtual reality adventure, a theme park ride, footage of a tornado on cable, or whatever. But this is not the same thing as either history or storytelling, necessarily.

Storytelling Images never stopped being popular. As soon as illustration died, comic books were booming. As soon as The Saturday Evening Post died, there suddenly appeared the Fantasy Art boom.

So I feel that this idea that cinema killed epic painting is kinda too facile.

Anyhow,
kev

[ShroudStar]

Yet, cinema has also given those of us who are storytellers with art another tool in our arsenal. Many of us have referred to movies being inspirational, maybe for its environment, costumes, and props designs or for its lighting or for how the camera angles are used to bring out a mood and reaction. I took an elective course in college, which dealt with the aspects of film, cameras, how to operate them, the jargon, how to write a script and storyboard, how to direct, and how the backroom (where the cutting, credit rolls, etc. went on) worked. That was of great benefit.

Not all of us can tell a story through actors and film, but the existence of those who do only strengthens us when it comes time for us to tell our tales.

[FallenGodX11]

Aren't there more story telling mediums out there other than in film, illustration or painting. I mean what about games today. Don't they tell stories as well now? If you looked at the early games like pong or there was never any story telling in games to begin with. But now, especially with the innovations of concept art the story in games are thriving today. Magic the Gathering never really had stories either to begin with their games. It was just pretend sorcery fighting, but now they have stories about planeswalkers and the multiverse. Why did they started to develop a story out of it? Games now seem to also be a story telling device today. Why?

[dirtydiesel]

If the whole story is worked out in my head I see little reason for doing the painting. Now this is my particular take, not a universal truth. I relish the idea of starting with very little and having this dialogue within my head and with the painting I am making. Often a story will develop but I am never disappointed when one does not reveal itself.

i personally feel exactly the same way, and was just having this conversation with my boyfriend (he's an artist too). i love working out painting problems in my head as i encounter them, and watching the story that i have in mind evolve as the image does, whereas my boyfriend has everything VERY planned out before he begins and he paints with an exact mental picture of how he wants things to go down.

[Chris Bennett]

I think one has to be clear about what we mean by 'story' in a static image. Hence the reason I used the photograph early on. My interpretations were really doing a sort of subjective knitting on the raw ingredients given by the photograph - an serendipitous image, a discarded snapshot with no provenace or intentional meaning as such.

The whole power of a static image is that it denies a denouement. Story wise, a picture creates its effect on the viewer like a pebble thrown into a still lake. For me, the creation of an image is the reverse of this event: a coming together of waves of feeling from different directions that I have to try and find a finite meeting point for, manifest by the picture itself.

[Kagemusha22]

But the societal role of grand epics is rarely historical. More usually it is simply sensationalism. And people will always seek out sensation, whether a huge scary painting, a explosion filled movie, a virtual reality adventure, a theme park ride, footage of a tornado on cable, or whatever. But this is not the same thing as either history or storytelling, necessarily.


This part of Kev's post reminds me of this painting;
http://falcon.fsc.edu/sgoodlett/davidnapoleonalps.jpg

And then placing it next to this one;
http://www.powellhistory.com/art/Painting/Delaroche%20-%20Napoleon%20Crossing%20the%20Alps.jpg

[Chris Bennett]

Yet the first one is the far better painting.

[Kiera]

Yet the first one is the far better painting.
Chris, can you explain very shortly why?
is it the technique, the message or something else?

[Chris Bennett]

Chris, can you explain very shortly why?
is it the technique, the message or something else?

It just seems to hang together as a totality. All the forms are in consort with each other, all sharing the gestural DNA of the picture's formal intent, a precarious, arrested moment in an implied movement from right to left. This includes the background, everything.

The flowing garments and the horse's mane and tail are full of the same thunder of the moment, all press to this end in the way they flow and relate to each other in an expression of the overall purpose.

In the second picture the ruffled coat and flaying decorations merely tell us the wind is blowing.

I could go on, but you asked me to keep it short!

[Kagemusha22]

is it the technique, the message or something else?

Trust me the message is not that deep, it's essentially Napoleon asking the artist to draw a six-pack on him. In matter of fact Napoleon didn't even pose for reference, the artist Jacques Louis Davide had to use his son instead. He also made two or three versions, and two other artists did notable master copies. (They didn't have scanners back in the day, y'see)

Still it's a very good painting, though I personally couldn't care less which is better. They both have strengths and weaknesses. (I should get a pillow for sitting on the fence)

[Graydon]

Likely the reason not too many painters do large narratives is that its very time consuming and expensive. Very. Its also for the masochist set. With a film, you have a lot of help from clothing to casting. Its not that making a movie isn't hard, just that the burden is shared. However, I think as painting changes and the art world becomes decentralized and pluralistic, more collectors will want complex works of art and pay what it costs to produce them. There will be a market not just for nudes and still lives but for multi-figure works as well.

[Black Spot]

I've been trying to search for some contemporary artist who do narrative story telling like the old masters, but unfortunately I've found very few people who do that in the fine art world these days. I can name a few like Graydon Parrish, Morgan Weistling, Steven Assael, Donato Gianocola and etc. but it's only a handful in the fine art world. There are people like the classical realist painters, like Jacob Collins, Adrian Gottlieb, and Jeremy Lipking, who are getting all the technical stuff of the old masters, but they are limited to what they can set up or see. In the more contemporary side there are painters who make photo realistic pictures, but they aren't really doing anything amazing with it and they aren't telling stories either, and to make a painting photo realistic seems to defeat the purpose of what a painting is suppose to do. Why make it realistic when you can just take a photograph? There are other painters who are mixing with the modern to get an interesting style, but it's mostly for a visual effect not really story telling either like Alex Kanefsky.

It seems that story telling in art has died off since the end of the 20th century. Most of the artist during that time went to illustration, doing illustrations for posters, book covers, and magazines. However as the photograph and printing got better illustration also changed. It didn't required that much realism, but it still required simple graphical illustrations to amuse the readers and to illustrate an idea. Right now it seems that concept art and entertainment seem to be the main story driven art. Will the story in painting survive, or will it die off? I hope it survives because I want to do paintings that tell stories and amaze people, but there aren't many who are doing it.

Do it. If you see a gap in the market and it tickles your fancy, fill it.

[Kiera]

amazing observation and a lot of knowledge in a handful of sentences
thank you so much for this, it gave me a fresh look on that picture

[FallenGodX11]

Likely the reason not too many painters do large narratives is that its very time consuming and expensive. Very. Its also for the masochist set. With a film, you have a lot of help from clothing to casting. Its not that making a movie isn't hard, just that the burden is shared. However, I think as painting changes and the art world becomes decentralized and pluralistic, more collectors will want complex works of art and pay what it costs to produce them. There will be a market not just for nudes and still lives but for multi-figure works as well.

How much time and resources did it take to make a painting that big thought?

[Graydon]

It can cost well over 25,000.00 and several years. In the 19th century, many had a lot of practice doing large scale works. Today, the training is rare. I think even illustrators are teaching themselves and inventing new ways through technology.

Remember that David, Ingres and Bouguereau had assistants who handled everything from drawing to backgrounds. Meissonier took years to paint his Friedland. I believe that Alma-Tadema spent four years painting his Roses of Heliogabalus and Seurat the same with the Grande Jatte. I suppose, the more assistants the quicker the painting process. With a factory, one can make dozens...but then there are staff costs such as coffee and vodka. :)

Carl Samson recently completed some major figural works. I think, though, for Assael and others, its more a labor of love than profit.

[FallenGodX11]

It can cost well over 25,000.00 and several years. In the 19th century, many had a lot of practice doing large scale works. Today, the training is rare. I think even illustrators are teaching themselves and inventing new ways through technology.

Remember that David, Ingres and Bouguereau had assistants who handled everything from drawing to backgrounds. Meissonier took years to paint his Friedland. I believe that Alma-Tadema spent four years painting his Roses of Heliogabalus and Seurat the same with the Grande Jatte. I suppose, the more assistants the quicker the painting process. With a factory, one can make dozens...but then there are staff costs such as coffee and vodka. :)

Carl Samson recently completed some major figural works. I think, though, for Assael and others, its more a labor of love than profit.

Do painters today still have assistants who help with the work? I thought the end of the workshop era for painters during the late 18th century ended the use of assistants and apprentices for painters. The workshops for painters ended and art education became much more institutionalized, but workshop practices for training painters still remained in the form of the ateliers. I wonder if some of the assistants you said were students of the masters they were working with or professional painters themselves?

[Graydon]

Both. In the past some were students and some artists collaborated with other professionals, such as Rubens and Frans Snyders. Some artists, like Gerome, hired specialists in perspective to assist with difficult projects.

Today, I have a friend who works for Jeff Koons. He does none of the work but rather acts as a CEO. Damien Hirst admits that he cannot even paint a polka-dot well. Think of these artists more as entertainers and big box stores: half Cinemark, half Walmart.

[FallenGodX11]

Many classical realist painters today seem to have this notion that they should just paint from life to create a painting. For example, Adrian Gottlieb says in his website that he doesn't paint from photographs, only from life. Simply because of the notion that the old Masters did it from life with no cameras and references, so therefore if they wish to paint like the old masters they must do it from life. I find this quite troubling though. Especially if a painter wants to paint something complex that they can't really find in life anymore. kagemusha22 points out though that even simple paintings of figures can tell a story though. Illustrators and concept artists would seem to have no problem with this though because they would use every resource to get the job done. Would a painter no longer be a classical artist if they didn't do it from life? Is it okay for a painter to use every resource they have to create the painting they want even if it didn't come from life?

[Graydon]

I am a purist until it gets in the way of what I want to paint. That is, not using photographs can become an impediment and compromise expression. Yet, biases happen in every movement, and artists go to war over trivialities. I have seen simple discussions on Munsell color, photography, maroger medium, prismatic palettes and even the use of an under-drawing sink other forums. People argue over minor methods rather than large ideas.
(I mean, there is a lot of negative, nasty art at large that barely raises an eyebrow)

Ultimately, whatever the style, its the results that matter. For me, its the message, the skill and the intelligence behind the work that distinguishes it.

[kev ferrara]

Graydon, I enjoy reading your posts and have sympathy with many of your ideas. I have found, however, (and I am sure you have as well) that "large ideas" and "messages" are popularly seen as anathema to the "freedom" of artists to create. In speaking of significance, only the choir listens. And the choir is small.

kev

[Graydon]

Probably the choir is small. First, I am not sure that the choir, or audience, is any larger for conceptual art. How appealing are installations; that is, does the audience approve of them because they are sensational or serious? As artists, we want to connect because of our art, not despite it.

Today, we just suffer a glut of entertainment possibilities. Art, as such, has to compete with American Idol and Two and a Half Men. Is it possible to compete in this realm? I am not sure. But a part of me thinks that painting the figure (or reality) is a step towards communication. That is, it uses the same vocabulary as television. So, I chose realism combined with allegory for two reasons. 1. because I believe that realistic images assist communication. (think of visual images as the lingua franca) and 2. photography has eclipsed painting as a document. So what is left for painting? The imagination. It is our job as realists (or classicists) to paint the unseen, the symbolic and the invented, but in a way that our audience, less visually acute, can understand but also be challenged by.

[kev ferrara]

"Job" might be too strong a word, Graydon, even though I agree with the idea. In my opinion the best art has always been the images that resonated the deepest, subliminally communicating their embedded symbolism. And such images could only be accomplished with great imagination, not to mention craftsmanship. However, in terms of communication, allegory, for me, is too conspicuous in its didacticism. If the mind believes the reality of an image, the message within enters the subconscious unhindered. If didacticism is evident, if it sits on the surface like pictographic text, the intellect becomes mindful of it. And the intellect ruins messages by its scrutiny, because it is so superficial, constantly categorizing ideas politically by rote. This ideological readiness or guard ultimately blocks any evident message from getting at the emotions unmolested. Thus the intellect is the enemy of understanding, from my perspective, and must be decoyed and distracted by illusion and entertainment in order for the deeper subtextual communication to occur. And of course illusion and entertainment is just the stuff to compete against sensation.

What follows is all just a postulation... As for conceptual art, it seems to me, it has an academic and media apparatus in place to ensure its audience, however small. That tribe or cult-like cabal approves because of the effectiveness of the apparatus at controlling their tastes and interests, even their vocabulary and thought patterns. (To read New Criterion or look at Andrew Wyeth, say, would be considered an apostasy). There is no similar apparatus in place for realistic work, because realistic work, generally, is apolitical at core, and therefore requires no indoctrination to appreciate... no hyping, no cult, no ideological apparatus.

[Graydon]

There is no similar apparatus in place for realistic work, because realistic work, generally, is apolitical at core, and therefore requires no indoctrination to appreciate... no hyping, no cult, no ideological apparatus.

I partly agree with this. However, realism has been used for political ends for centuries, to affect the perception of the underclass as in Murillo or as subtle to overt propaganda as in the case of Gros and David. And what is Raphael if not ideological? Catholicism doesn't have a history of being egalitarian. As for Wyeth and the New Criterion, both have strong perspectives. They may not vie with Jeff Koons and the New York Times, yet they are myopic in their own ways. (Well, maybe not Wyeth...he seems like the most benevolent of famous artists. Too bad he's gone. )

As for your take on allegory, I simply don't agree. But I have a taste for the strange and the obscure. I also think one can take his medicine and be aware that it is medicine. (That is, it doesn't need sugar) Such is the glory of the placebo effect. (Even true remedies benefit from this) Simply by being aware that one is seeing art, rather than decoration or entertainment, one is more inclined to think and less inclined to be passive. Passivity is what dulls the senses.

[OmenSpirits]

By way of answering your question I will open things up a little by standing it on its head. Consider this vernacular photograph below. I have offered two ways of how I read its 'story'. The power seems to derive from it not being overt:

682682

At first glance I think "oh, that's an arresting, strange image". But then I find myself irresistibly drawn to what makes it so. And then the magic starts to happen.

Notice how the window quarterlight is open on an open door that opens the photo itself. The way the woman's elbow 'mirror echos' that quarterlight along with its resemblance to the shadow of the window-winder on the left. How the woman's cigarette echos the slant of the quarterlight.

Then there is that ominous sickle shaped shadow cast from the door lever that eerily steers us up to the figures and their opposing gazes - the overtones of that shape suggest that the woman might just that moment have had an uncomfortable premonition of some kind.

The door lever and the widow winder also stand as analogous for the people themselves - the woman's agitated pose resembles the window winder and the calm, arched stance of the man is seen in the inverted shape of the door handle. Perhaps he is her problem and she has just realised it?

The small little button rising out of the big bottom shadow....is us, the viewer - peeping into this world caught as shadows on a light sensitive piece of paper. A metaphor, meteor-like, fallen from serendipity.


Then again:

Who has photographed it? It's a very subjective image: someone left in the car watching from a distance. It looks like the couple have moved some distance away so as not to be heard - but there's no eye contact between them, no communication taking place. I'm getting the sense of a child left in the car while Dad lectures (look at the stance: trying to be assertive by leaning forward slightly but undermining it by putting his hands in his pockets) Mum again - but she's just leaning against a wall, smoking a cigarette and pretty much ignoring him. It's a family holiday that nobody's enjoying.
Given I wrote crime fiction for a long time, my first thought was, "What did they heist, and where is the body lying". :D

[kev ferrara]

However, realism has been used for political ends for centuries...

Yes, however I was trying to make the point that aesthetics itself only became political to a significant degree with the coming of modernism through the 19th century into the 20th. Aesthetic radicalism became a sort of tribal signal, a rebellion chic advert.


As for Wyeth and the New Criterion, both have strong perspectives.

Right, my point was that these institutions fell outside the strictly policed postmodernist sect, and "consulting these texts" might induce a social penalty.


...one can take his medicine and be aware that it is medicine. (That is, it doesn't need sugar) Such is the glory of the placebo effect. (Even true remedies benefit from this) Simply by being aware that one is seeing art, rather than decoration or entertainment, one is more inclined to think and less inclined to be passive. Passivity is what dulls the senses.

I agree that passivity dulls the senses. Thought itself, in my estimation, is often in stasis... as people generally fall into patterns of thought from which they never emerge. One of the tasks of a work of art is to pull the viewer from that stasis, to engage, in order to provide escort through a change of mind. And it seems to me, while there are numerous methods of escort, the first step in any approach must be to recognize the torpor of the viewer and either arrest attention or in some other way condition the viewer to be receptive to the communication.

Not to be too obvious, but the receptive condition is a key element to the art experience and consideration should always be taken to sustain it. I think, by and large, people seek out art unconscious of the deep "medicinal" need they are filling. Most viewers, (and I would dare to say, most artists) don't know (or will refuse to acknowledge or even hear evidence of) the differences between art, decoration, or entertainment anyhow. And autodidactic consciousness is variable in the extreme. So I can see no good reason to surface the viewer's "medicinal" need, as it veers the experience toward the classroom or clinic, which tends to evoke feelings of confinement, boredom, fear, rote learning, and authoritariansim... all causes of resistance, rather than receptivity.

So I think it sensible to allow the average gallery viewer to keep the illusion that they are looking for sugar, in order to give them what they really need... in order to keep their thoughts at the level of aesthetics and entertainment, where they are most susceptible to prelinguistic moral suggestion.

This is not necessarily a shout out for gobs of sugar with a cherry on top. But since any quality of art is a kind of sugar, including realism itself, it seems silly to deny the role of sugar in art. Every gesture is sugar. The graphic fact of a canvas is sugar. The very idea of a painting is a kind of sugar. Art is a web of spun sugar that, yet, signifies an ineffable thought. If one wishes to send a message unsweetened and uncoded, why not write it, email it, text it, or send it by telegram?

kev