|
Today, I started
with the Cloisters and ended at the Metropolitan Museum
of Art. It was a rainy day.
What I learned
today follows.
Stylization
and symbol characterize Byzantine / Medieval / Early Renaissance
Painting – there is a focus on God in the language
of representation.
Humanism and naturalism become
the focus as we move through and out of the Renaissance.
As work progresses through history in a line of developmental
evolution of subject and style, we see that it moves more
towards natural representation and human concerns within
the world (myth / politics / natural perception/ emotional
pursuits / personal reflection / rebellion) - continuing
into the mundane, the everyday, and even nonsensical randomness.
The art tends to be informed by the thought of the time
and the influence of a given social patron - paralleling
with religion, science, politics, and philosophy as representing
our world.
But the work seems to me,
to lose its impact of meaning - bringing us to a love of
the object with out a higher contemplation for it. Not until
the late 1940’s and 50’s (from the work I was
seeing before me, displayed at the Met - Pousette-Dart,
Motherwell, Rothko, Franz Kline, etc) am I hit with the
power contained in the earlier images.
Thinking about this, I ponder
that they are once again becoming powerful on a subconscious
level. A level not described by the real or natural representation.
One can not see this while one is in love with painting
and technique. My friend Ken says this is how God speaks
to us, through poetry and metaphor and symbol and parable.
Though not removed from all works aspiring to recreate the
natural before us (as if a camera) – as real or even
ilussionistic - metaphor and parable are sometimes missed
as one gets lost in the realism of the artists technique
to recreate nature as it looks. Then there are those works
that are not about anything other than what the subject
is - and those that use a subject only for the vehicle rendered
to express the technique that speaks of an idea of perception
(Impressionism, Post Impressionism, Cubism, etc).
I am reminded of the commandment
to not make any graven image – not of man or foul
or beast of the air or of the sea…. And I think. That
it is possibly in the representation of these things as
real that the damage is done and the art is lost –
the graven image is a false representation lacking elements
of dynamic interaction - something in that primality that
touches us deeply with the finger of mystery - something
that reminds us of God's mystery.
Picasso touched upon primality
with Guernica. Some Expressionists are also hitting it in
expressing their pain in a way that is hard to express naturalistically.
Many artists have - who sought the power of stylizations
that touch us in a deeper consciousness. We are not so much
wowed by the quality of realness delineated by a painting
but by something else suggested through the painting –
like the difference between loving the fine craft of rhetoric,
to the hearing of an honest confession. Something of the
moment gets lost in refinement.
Something about the work
being undefined by realistic representational naturalistic
imagery, allows for the mind to engage it differently. In
the Byzantine and Medieval / early Renaissance works, there
was no attempt at a real scene – the art represented
an idea and used such conventions as design, rhythm, pattern,
and symbol to bring about sensation and reflection. Again,
upon coming into contact with artwork that refuses to be
glazed in realism and believable setting, there is a different
sort of appeal at a different level. There are some very
bold and commanding non-objective works that touch us on
our deeper primal - subconscious core. Do these non-objective
works of our Modern period and some from our Post-Modern
period, have anything valid to say or express, is an entirely
different matter. Much about these works are left to individual
perception – completely open to where the imagination
or emotions will carry the viewer - and with a lack of representational
object to agree upon, these works are left to varied and
personal interpretation.
And so was I impacted - first
by the Pousette-Dart at the Met, prior to turning the corner
into the 1950's modern works - this, after becoming increasingly
disappointed and disinterested, starting with Rococo and
up through the early 1900's. Even work I previously admired
now seemed superficial in relation to the earlier works
mentioned and now this revitalized expression of our Modern
period.
I am left to wonder
at ways to put the power of the immediate mystery into an
artwork that will also inspire divine reflection.
As for Umbrellas -
I learned that when it is raining, and a strong gust of
wind blows, a $7 umbrella becomes a cup. I stand here wet
to let you know this.
November continued
- Art Makes a Difference >>11.18
|