The problem of subject for today's artists

[Kamber Parrk]

Well, here's both cheesy AND hardcore!

[Chris Bennett]

What has happened is that two things have come apart, namely:
1. The pure formal plastic means of how the optic mechanisms of an organised image affect the nervous system.
2. The subject and its narrative implication.

Its like a broken sword - the blade and the handle no longer together. The forging of these two things into an indivisible whole is what happens in great works of art. It is a definition of it if you like.
But as others have said, this ain't easy. And its made even more difficult because the fact that it is broken is not widely seen to be an issue in our culture. Hence we have formalism on one hand and conceptual art on the other with 'picture making for picture making's sake' muddling along in the middle.
I'm over stating things of course, but I believe my general contention to be true.

[Serpian]

I'm not quite clear what point you are making Serps, although I am interested by it.

To be honest, I'm not quite clear myself. I was kind of rambling in that post. But you do have a point in the comparison between Botticelli and the badminton players. I can absolutely see the similar mood in the paintings, even though the narrative, at least on the surface, is different.

[Aly Fell]

What on Earth has Barry Gibb done to deserve that...

Well, here's both cheesy AND hardcore!

[Ryan K]

The Serenade


A Fine Point

Can someone explain the narrative of these two images, for examples sake? Is it necessary understand the context of the painting to get the narrative, or is there a level of narration you can detect simply from the aesthetic(yes I understand somethings being explained in the last picture, but is that it?)? I would think that great art has a narrative open to interpretation, like some lyrics to songs. But it seems that the best narrative paintings have a strict story or message.

[Chris Bennett]

Both these images that Serps posted above are to a greater or lesser extent simply illustrating anecdote and allegory respectively - The two muinstrals, appears to be just what it says on the tin. But the second, a theological point (possibly) being explained to a Cardinal is further enhanced by the anecdotal idea that the gesture the man makes with his right hand in the air is mirrored by the design of the fountain. The implication is that the stone ducks on that 'gesture' fountain are a comment on the nature of the 'fine point' he is making; an ossified, lifeless interpretation of the living ducks that cirlce it. They circle the fountain in the same way that the Cardinal gives audience to the gesture, the fine point, the man is making. And of course we are meant to take it from this that the relationship of the Cardinal (Christian) ideas to the man's idea is the same as that of the living ducks to the petrified stone ones. (This point is pushed further by the man being almost the same colour and value as the stone fountain whereas the Cardinal shares his colour with the circling living ducks.)

But this is largely all allegorical illustration, not something that is expressed by the optical mechanics if the way the picture is shaped. In other words one must be aware of the scenario by the way the optic behaviour of the image affects the nervous system directly and at the same time as it being in absolute in sync with what is being depicted.

For instance, in 'The Badminton Game' before we notice any specifics we are initially aware of some slightly toppling green forms like disturbed skittles set in a neat, tranquil box space. That is the initial impression, it is what we take in before our reasoning takes possession of it. Now, this 'sensation' is then reiterated as we realise that these are neat trees that are all slightly out of alignment with each other within a manicured garden on a quiet morning or early evening. They are contrasted by the straight, balanced fact of the house within the garden. So the emerging depictions within the initial optical effect of the picture are being confirmed and thereby intensified and realised by them. The third stage is to notice that the girl's movements are being echoed or 'played out' by the trees in the mid distance, indeed the left had girl's racket even seems to describe or 'draw' the arc of the bush behind her. So optically speaking the girls are the trees and the trees are the girls. We are witness to the metaphor that nature, in a certain mood is the embodiment of the feminine, but in a way that is not allegorical. Inshaw is being quite specific about the nature of the femininity - a slightly off balance, slightly unpredictable yet delicately graceful playfullness within an ordered, reasoned world. But we are being made aware of it by the nature of the metaphorical optics of the picture itself.

This is what I mean by form and content being one. The blade and the handle fused together.

[Mr.Thorne]

I blame crappy school art classes and how they are either do whatever or be technical.

could just be me though

[TASmith]

I thought the painting of the cardinal and the monk had more to do with latent homosexuality within the church. What's that cardinal about to do? Looks like he wants to make a move.

[Book Guru]

Chris,

To me, it's not that clear either.
By the way, is there anyone from Italy here?
I've heard (though I might be wrong) that this gesture, which in the US means "ok", in Italy means "asshole"?

And, don't you think that if the artwork requires so much explanation, perhaps it simply doesn't worth the attention? If you leave everything behind, and just look and say, Hey, I just love what I see - then I'll find this to be a bit more convincing.

[Cory Hinman]

Well, the layman viewer doesn't require any explanation, but the sort of in-depth analysis Chris kindly and brilliantly supplied here is required by those of us who aspire to make art, because we need to bring this depth of thought and then some from our side. We bring as much thought and feeling to all aspects of the process as we can, then let the viewer pick up what he or she will, supplemented by their own thought, feeling and experience.

[Chris Bennett]

TASmith and Book Guru: My point about the Cardinal picture was not whether my interpretation of it was true or not but the fact that it was somewhat ambivilently allegorical in nature. Hence the fact that other people have different interpretations proves my point - but I should have made that a little clearer in my post.

The Badminton Players on the other had is quite different - which is the reason I provided my analysis. My point is that this analysis is not required to enjoy the painting's message. It hits you quite subliminally, but for definite reasons to do with the form and the content being as one, and hence its enormous power. The Cardinal picture on the other hand does not really transmit its message in this way and largely only impresses with its display of beautiful rendering on one hand and textual interpretive possibilities on the other; in this picture the form and the content are much more separated.

EDIT: Cory has just kindly picked up on an aspect of this point while I was posting.

[Ryan_B]

Can someone explain the narrative of these two images, for examples sake?

'A Fine Point' is part of a series of anti-clerical paintings by Vibert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-clerical_art

"Note the direction of the cardinal’s gaze and the sculpture to the young monk’s right."

The cardinal is also...ahem...adjusting his clothes in an interesting way.

[Ravendell]

Currently i'm following an orientation year at a prestigious art academy. As they clearly stated they wish to teach to thinking process behind a "picture", or rather conceptual drawing and barely putting any significance on technique.

Now i don't find it a bad approach, but if i see every single "artist" making stuff out of glue, paper, plastic and whichever and call it conceptual thinking and "out of the box" art. And yet continue to call great artists like Fragonard simple minded for his so-called "single" ability to just create nice pictures...

You can go ahead and fuck a rock, who knows, it could concieve something with a brain.

[kev ferrara]

If you are trying to paint for a specific audience, you better have in mind the interests of the audience.

If you are painting to express yourself, you better have in mind what interests you.

/thread?

[QueenGwenevere]

If you want, you could think of "the Serenade" as a movie still - it's pretty much thought out and presented the same way you might set up a shot in a film. Imagine the shot right before that picture - maybe we see the lady's view from her balcony: she sees pretty-boy looking good and playing his guitar, oh-so-picturesque and romantic...

Cut to shot #2: We see the scene from below, with trash under the balcony, and pretty-boy's valet hunkering out of sight holding pretty-boy's ratty old guitar case, umbrella, and other paraphernalia. Totally unromantic contrast.

Basic comic opera scenario, really. But you can figure out the situation and imagine a larger story just from the picture alone, which I guess is the point.

You don't always need allegory and in-depth analysis, sometimes you just need clever staging and an ability to "direct" your mental actors. So to speak.

[Chris Bennett]

'A Fine Point' is part of a series of anti-clerical paintings by Vibert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-clerical_art

"Note the direction of the cardinal’s gaze and the sculpture to the young monk’s right."

The cardinal is also...ahem...adjusting his clothes in an interesting way.

Aha! Looking at it again that is certainly what that paintings is up to!
The fact that my highbrow interpretation completely missed the mark on every level shows precisely how allegorical illustration is so feeble at transmitting its message. You see in it what you want to see (Kev, nailed it better in the post just above).
This is why subject in painting can only hope to transmit its purpose accurately by using the kind of plastic means I was talking about in the Badminton picture.

[QueenGwenevere]

@kev: Yeah, that pretty much covers everything.

You forgot the intermediate step, though, "persuade the client to do what the target audience actually wants instead of just aping what everyone else is putting on the market."

That's the hard part.

[Serpian]

You're way more analytical than me, Chris! The reason I like pictures like A Fine Point is that the poses and staging in my mind captures an anecdotal story so well - I haven't given much thought about what it actually represents. My deepest interpretation of that image prior to this discussion was (knowing Vibert's other work critical of the church) that the story is these two men of the cloth debating some probably pretty obscure passage of scripture. The echoing of the monk's hand in the stone ducks, I would probably only have seen as Vibert trying to make use of shapes to create a unifying composition. I guess that's pretty naive and art studenty of me, only looking at the surface... But now that others have pointed it out, I definitely see the homosexual symbolism. So the message of the painting is, in the end "LOL church dudes are so GAY"?

I've thought a bit more about the Serenade, though. Usually I'm one to argue that you shouldn't need background info to appreciate a piece of art, but knowing that Vibert fought in the bloody siege of Paris, I think you might read in a bit more into this picture. Just look at the setting, autumn leaves, broken and empty flower pots, the decaying stone staircase.. It's all about nostalgia. Now that I think of it, I might be wrong, but I've always seen the older guy as wearing some kind of military uniform. It might just be a fancy period costume though. But still, this is an old man's nostalgia, thinking about the summer that was, while the young singer represents the spring that will come. This is my favourite piece by Vibert, I think it's very beautiful, both in execution and content.

[am●na,☼nafa&Kash☉fa]

I've thought this for a long time, but I don't necessarily have a problem with it... I think people should do the art they want no matter how boring it is... But kev pretty much wrapped shit up.

[Book Guru]

Currently i'm following an orientation year at a prestigious art academy. As they clearly stated they wish to teach to thinking process behind a "picture", or rather conceptual drawing and barely putting any significance on technique.

Ravendell,
I dare to ask:
There is a prestigious art academy that does that? Wow.
So at what point of thinking process they allow students to start working on technique?

[Ryan_B]

So the message of the painting is, in the end "LOL church dudes are so GAY"?

Vibert did a series of paintings showing cardinals engaged in gluttony, gambling, and listening to fortune tellers. I think this painting and the others are meant to show the cardinals as fallible human beings who engaged in the same behaviours as the rest of the world. This would be considered anti-clerical for showing the fallibility of the clergy.

I don't think it's just about the cardinal being a homosexual.

But yes, a significant number of church dudes are quite gay. He had a sense of humour, and probably did LOL while making these paintings.

[Ryan K]

For instance, in 'The Badminton Game' before we notice any specifics we are initially aware of some slightly toppling green forms like disturbed skittles set in a neat, tranquil box space. That is the initial impression, it is what we take in before our reasoning takes possession of it. Now, this 'sensation' is then reiterated as we realise that these are neat trees that are all slightly out of alignment with each other within a manicured garden on a quiet morning or early evening. They are contrasted by the straight, balanced fact of the house within the garden. So the emerging depictions within the initial optical effect of the picture are being confirmed and thereby intensified and realised by them. The third stage is to notice that the girl's movements are being echoed or 'played out' by the trees in the mid distance, indeed the left had girl's racket even seems to describe or 'draw' the arc of the bush behind her. So optically speaking the girls are the trees and the trees are the girls. We are witness to the metaphor that nature, in a certain mood is the embodiment of the feminine, but in a way that is not allegorical. Inshaw is being quite specific about the nature of the femininity - a slightly off balance, slightly unpredictable yet delicately graceful playfullness within an ordered, reasoned world. But we are being made aware of it by the nature of the metaphorical optics of the picture itself.

This is what I mean by form and content being one. The blade and the handle fused together.

So it's like "One of these is not like the other!" ((House)) < ((Trees/Women))

Painting with narrative almost seem like building a puzzle. Moving around focal points, finding the lesser and greater significances (& contrasts) and placing them in the right spots for a story to be revealed. That, is definitely cool.

[Ravendell]

Ravendell,
I dare to ask:
There is a prestigious art academy that does that? Wow.
So at what point of thinking process they allow students to start working on technique?

Well, they don't however there are a few teachers that do give lessons in technique and color theory for example. But you guessed it, you have to charge in behind them to get some knowledge.

I find it bothersome specially for a country like Netherland that became famous for its artists partly. It seems that technique and expression is out of fashion. It seems Art can no longer be simple for its beauty, it has to be different. Art for artists it seems, it makes me want to die beneath a mossy rock.

[Scale]

By the way, is there anyone from Italy here?
I've heard (though I might be wrong) that this gesture, which in the US means "ok", in Italy means "asshole"?

I'm form Italy but as far as I know that's not true, it can mean "ok" here too (it's not much used in that sense) but mostly it is a stereotypical gesture used during pompous speeches, by politicians etc., when making a strong point. Mussolini used that a lot:
http://www.sasakifujika.net/otherimg/mussolini.jpg

[Book Guru]

Ravendell,

- "you have to charge in behind them to get some knowledge"
This still sounds very strange to me... Looking for narrative (the "concept") without even making preliminary drawings/sketches?
I mean, it's ok for a design school (probably...) but for the "prestigious art academy"...??
Weird.
------

Scale,

Thank you. I don't remember where I've read about this - in some intercultural communication book... that the same gestures mean absolutely different things in many countries (the same as colors, numbers, sounds, etc...). This was one of examples; may be it used to be different in some other countries, now it seems to really become a universal symbol (the same as many others).

Though I find it amazing that the most favorite symbol of all dictators (and not-so-much dictators) is pointing their index finger to the sky...
It used to be the previlege of those close to God (Christ, saints, priests, etc...)
Does anyone remember any Greek/Roman example with something like this?

[SoufMeng]

BG, I had read it was offensive in Turkey, which is confirmed by wiki where they also mention Venezuela and Peru. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-ok
Incidentally we were talking about homosexuality in the cardinal picture and that gesture is considered offensive in those country precisely for the reference it makes to anal sex.

[Book Guru]

SouMeng,

It seems like we're really great at investigating any kind of a narrative, I guess..?

Back in the US I remember one guy was taking a special course on intercultural communication before going to Thailand - later one he was telling me things that had totally knocked me down (e.g., pointing/holding any sharp objects towards a person, even crossing your legs or hands could be found offensive, etc)...
Recently I've been in China and had special instructions on how I should present my business card and how I should take my partner's business card in return...
Etc, etc.....

So I guess, the narrative issue is as much important from the point of understanding your audience's heritage... or you can insult the whole nation without even knowing about it!

[Chris Bennett]

This is precisely the problem. The treatment of a subject must transcend cultural references, or rather that they are irrelevant to the painting's purpose.

Take something simple - a beautiful girl. What must the painter do to make the painted image of her become something the photograph of her is not?
This is a straightforward question, but it amazing how many people do not have anything like an adequate answer.

[Book Guru]

I have a straightforward answer to this question.

The artist must LIE, for "her become something the photograph of her is not".

This is a simplification of entire fine arts, but this is how it goes.
Otherwise, it's a photo.

[Chris Bennett]

But LIE to what end?
The girl is beautiful, how will lying make for a painting that celebrates the beauty of the girl?

This painting is of a beautiful girl. But the painting itself is beautiful, its more than a just picture of a pretty girl. The subject has been conveyed in a way that goes beyond the anecdotal, in this case good looks, it has been conveyed by the alchemy of organised pictorial events. The subject has been reinvented in terms of significant formal choices.