I have a book titled, ‘the naked truth and personal vision’ pub 1955, back when the notion first began to appear that representational art was, always had been really, doomed to pitiful failure, plebeian, dumb, and way too easy. This is because, from the first line of the book, the representational artist ‘can never achieve his ideal of the naked truth: the exact duplication of the original.’ Just last night, Sir Simon Michael Schama, CBE, FRSL, FBA, an English historian specializing in art history, a University Professor of History and Art History at Columbia University, and host of the lavish nine episode survey, CIVILIZATION, again asserted the same notion, that exact reproduction of nature simply isn’t possible, is it, throwing in the snide little barb, ‘what a feeble idea, this copying of the world.’
Wait. Let’s back up. I’m not convinced that ‘exact duplication’ was ever a goal of representational art, and further think I can safely guarantee there’s never been an artist who attempted to eat the pear they just painted. The ‘feeble idea’ Sir Simon belittled was never actually an idea at all, and so dismissing it is hardly an act of genius, sounds more like sleight of hand, maybe some form of Obi-wan suggestion. If you buy this rubber chicken in the first place, everything else they’re going to say will make sense, no matter how goofy it eventually becomes, look around. Their deviant first premise, ‘the accidental mark is exponentially superior to the intentional,' is an asinine assertion really, and it’s always accompanied by the bogus slur that 'representational art is boorishly easy and reveals a lack of creative imagination,’ something like that, it’s not my argument.
There it is, the unspoken oath required at the door, the velvet rope of modern art, and if you don’t say it, think it, believe it, you can’t enter. You're pretty sure it isn’t true, because drawing stuff is hard, but that’s the beauty of it, don’t you see? Suspension of your personal judgement in favor of complicit affirmation from the officially anointed, like the two unassailable experts above, is sure to advance your white wine sophistication, but sadly will also pretty well guarantee you’ll never really see or understand visual art. Actually, even with all their degrees and self-sure style of delivery, from what they seem to be saying, it’s not entirely certain these cultural potentates see or understand art themselves, so ready to dismiss Raphael and all the rest.
The naked truth is that making marks on a flat surface that reminds someone else of something they’ve seen before in three dimensional reality is very difficult, and this is a proposition that can be tested anytime by anyone with a pencil and piece of paper. Experts at all levels should give it a try. Not only is it hard to do, but you’re likely to be judged by your miserable failure, is it a horse or a cat, so you’d have to be brave to even try. Artists are just like you but some of them take that risk, leaving themselves open, even vulnerable, to the judgement of others, just by attempting to depict the real world, and there’s nothing feeble about it. Owning a painting that exhibits character and accomplishment, while verifying and extending your own experience and personal vision, is really pretty neat, like having a tight rope walker always performing in your living room.
Wait. Let’s back up. I’m not convinced that ‘exact duplication’ was ever a goal of representational art, and further think I can safely guarantee there’s never been an artist who attempted to eat the pear they just painted. The ‘feeble idea’ Sir Simon belittled was never actually an idea at all, and so dismissing it is hardly an act of genius, sounds more like sleight of hand, maybe some form of Obi-wan suggestion. If you buy this rubber chicken in the first place, everything else they’re going to say will make sense, no matter how goofy it eventually becomes, look around. Their deviant first premise, ‘the accidental mark is exponentially superior to the intentional,' is an asinine assertion really, and it’s always accompanied by the bogus slur that 'representational art is boorishly easy and reveals a lack of creative imagination,’ something like that, it’s not my argument.
There it is, the unspoken oath required at the door, the velvet rope of modern art, and if you don’t say it, think it, believe it, you can’t enter. You're pretty sure it isn’t true, because drawing stuff is hard, but that’s the beauty of it, don’t you see? Suspension of your personal judgement in favor of complicit affirmation from the officially anointed, like the two unassailable experts above, is sure to advance your white wine sophistication, but sadly will also pretty well guarantee you’ll never really see or understand visual art. Actually, even with all their degrees and self-sure style of delivery, from what they seem to be saying, it’s not entirely certain these cultural potentates see or understand art themselves, so ready to dismiss Raphael and all the rest.
The naked truth is that making marks on a flat surface that reminds someone else of something they’ve seen before in three dimensional reality is very difficult, and this is a proposition that can be tested anytime by anyone with a pencil and piece of paper. Experts at all levels should give it a try. Not only is it hard to do, but you’re likely to be judged by your miserable failure, is it a horse or a cat, so you’d have to be brave to even try. Artists are just like you but some of them take that risk, leaving themselves open, even vulnerable, to the judgement of others, just by attempting to depict the real world, and there’s nothing feeble about it. Owning a painting that exhibits character and accomplishment, while verifying and extending your own experience and personal vision, is really pretty neat, like having a tight rope walker always performing in your living room.
No comments:
Post a Comment