Ars Gratia Artis
art of art's sake, in English
My thing of this week is art. I've always been a little sketcher, and looking back on my several notebooks of sketches ... I'd certainly call it ars gratia artis. There's no monetary profit, merely satisfaction of mind at a job well done. My favourite is Raphael. When I visited Florence with a tour group and didn't have time to stop and visit the museum, I was certainly not a happy camper. But, I do have notebooks of copies of Raphael sketches. I've known people who don't understand why I copy Raphael sketches as exercises, instead of making new art. This seems to me to be too easy a thing to be worth explaining. It's like asking a math professor why 1 + 1 is 2 and having them look at the paper, nod, and say "oh yeah, that's obvious".
Raphael has some of the best technique in the world. His sketches have a realism that's is unforeseeable by looking at the lines independently. He's not to be confused with Michangelo, who (to me at least) has more "decisive" strokes. Of course, decisiveness is not out of place for a man who drew a perfect circle freehanded to prove to Pope Julius II that he was worthy of a commission.
The fact of the matter is: whatever art is, it starts with good technique. It doesn't matter that your painting does not have a perfect sketch of a human hand; it does matter that you can draw a perfect sketch of a human hand. No matter how abstract the art is, there is always something that points to the technique of the artist. But, notwithstanding the greatness of the masters of the Renaissance, art move on. The Renaissance was refreshing - the figures were realistic and didn't all have halos on their heads and the building had dimension - but its time passed. And so has the time of Impressionism, Cubism (not completely I guess), Expressionism ... all those 'isms. After looking through a whole pile of May/June 06 art magazine, I still can't pinpoint what art is "in" today. There was a variety of things, including landscapes with not a scratch of abstraction, paintings made of crayon blasted with a heatgun (which is actually pretty, google Dan Kaufman), and Kandinsky-like shapes in primary colours. Of course, I supposed Bodies in Motion (human components from real human corpses turned into plastic) is also considered art.
What is art today and how has is deviated from the original idea of art? Wasn't art supposed to be aesthetically pleasing? Or is art just things that have statements and meaning (hence excluding "pretty painting" of vases and flowers)? And where do you draw the line between meaning attached to the painting by the painter and meaning drawn by some connotation of the viewer? Perhaps I think a vase of pretty daisies expresses the innocence of the world. Perhaps if it were a vase of sunflowers ... then there's no question of it being art, since van Gogh imitations are considered artistic.
I'll conclude with the cautionary tale of Han van Meegeren, the beginning of whose tale many struggling artists can relate to. Han van Meegeren was a Dutch painter in the 20th century. While studying architecture at university, van Meegeren developed magnificent painting skills for painting in the style of the great Dutch painters (Vermeer, Rembrandt). However, he was ridiculed by the art critics and couldn't sell his art. But, he was so devoted to his style of painting, as many artists are, that he wanted to remain with his style. To prove the critics wrong, van Meegeren's paintings are indeed valuable today. In fact, van Meegeren is one of the most famous art forgers of all time, known for forging Vermeers. He had passed off many paintings and Vermeers before one surface in the Goring's collection at the end of WWII and was traced back to him.
So, besides the narrow distinction of the ars gratia artis that may or may not have been present in the artwork of van Meegeren (he did paint in the style that he liked, but for unreasonable not to mention illegal profit), the point is the van Meegeren's paintings were merely worthless forgeries, but they were escalated to the point of very desirable art after his arrest. In fact, may famous forgeries become collectible art after their forger has been unmasked (google de Hory, Rospigliosi cup). Does fame make the art? From the notoriety of forgeries to the somewhat recent book of paintings from Paul McCartney, I would say there's some correlation. So, all that philosophical, aesthetical arguement about the nature of art is trumped by a bit of notoriety.
A little like artistic weltschmerz? I think so.
My thing of this week is art. I've always been a little sketcher, and looking back on my several notebooks of sketches ... I'd certainly call it ars gratia artis. There's no monetary profit, merely satisfaction of mind at a job well done. My favourite is Raphael. When I visited Florence with a tour group and didn't have time to stop and visit the museum, I was certainly not a happy camper. But, I do have notebooks of copies of Raphael sketches. I've known people who don't understand why I copy Raphael sketches as exercises, instead of making new art. This seems to me to be too easy a thing to be worth explaining. It's like asking a math professor why 1 + 1 is 2 and having them look at the paper, nod, and say "oh yeah, that's obvious".
Raphael has some of the best technique in the world. His sketches have a realism that's is unforeseeable by looking at the lines independently. He's not to be confused with Michangelo, who (to me at least) has more "decisive" strokes. Of course, decisiveness is not out of place for a man who drew a perfect circle freehanded to prove to Pope Julius II that he was worthy of a commission.
The fact of the matter is: whatever art is, it starts with good technique. It doesn't matter that your painting does not have a perfect sketch of a human hand; it does matter that you can draw a perfect sketch of a human hand. No matter how abstract the art is, there is always something that points to the technique of the artist. But, notwithstanding the greatness of the masters of the Renaissance, art move on. The Renaissance was refreshing - the figures were realistic and didn't all have halos on their heads and the building had dimension - but its time passed. And so has the time of Impressionism, Cubism (not completely I guess), Expressionism ... all those 'isms. After looking through a whole pile of May/June 06 art magazine, I still can't pinpoint what art is "in" today. There was a variety of things, including landscapes with not a scratch of abstraction, paintings made of crayon blasted with a heatgun (which is actually pretty, google Dan Kaufman), and Kandinsky-like shapes in primary colours. Of course, I supposed Bodies in Motion (human components from real human corpses turned into plastic) is also considered art.
What is art today and how has is deviated from the original idea of art? Wasn't art supposed to be aesthetically pleasing? Or is art just things that have statements and meaning (hence excluding "pretty painting" of vases and flowers)? And where do you draw the line between meaning attached to the painting by the painter and meaning drawn by some connotation of the viewer? Perhaps I think a vase of pretty daisies expresses the innocence of the world. Perhaps if it were a vase of sunflowers ... then there's no question of it being art, since van Gogh imitations are considered artistic.
I'll conclude with the cautionary tale of Han van Meegeren, the beginning of whose tale many struggling artists can relate to. Han van Meegeren was a Dutch painter in the 20th century. While studying architecture at university, van Meegeren developed magnificent painting skills for painting in the style of the great Dutch painters (Vermeer, Rembrandt). However, he was ridiculed by the art critics and couldn't sell his art. But, he was so devoted to his style of painting, as many artists are, that he wanted to remain with his style. To prove the critics wrong, van Meegeren's paintings are indeed valuable today. In fact, van Meegeren is one of the most famous art forgers of all time, known for forging Vermeers. He had passed off many paintings and Vermeers before one surface in the Goring's collection at the end of WWII and was traced back to him.
So, besides the narrow distinction of the ars gratia artis that may or may not have been present in the artwork of van Meegeren (he did paint in the style that he liked, but for unreasonable not to mention illegal profit), the point is the van Meegeren's paintings were merely worthless forgeries, but they were escalated to the point of very desirable art after his arrest. In fact, may famous forgeries become collectible art after their forger has been unmasked (google de Hory, Rospigliosi cup). Does fame make the art? From the notoriety of forgeries to the somewhat recent book of paintings from Paul McCartney, I would say there's some correlation. So, all that philosophical, aesthetical arguement about the nature of art is trumped by a bit of notoriety.
A little like artistic weltschmerz? I think so.
posted by Kay at 12:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home