Welcome to tcp.com.mt

"DISCOURSE" on aesthetics

THE CONVERSATIONALISTS IN ‘DISCOURSE’

"DISCOURSE" is devoted to he publishing of essays on the nature of aesthetics.

Those who wish to be invited to submit their thoughts for publication and interactive response should contact "THE CREATIVITY PACKET" at: prh@tcp.conm.mt

Essays shgould be limited to 5 MBs including illustrations. Comments on essays should be limted to 1MB including illustrations.

Names and e-mail addresses should accompany all submissions.

Neither THE CREATIVITY PACKET nor ONVOL accept responsibilty for comments by contributors.

HENRICKSON ON FRED ROSS

ARC= ARTRENEWAL.COM.: SOME

For several decades now I have been vitally interested in the nature of creativity. In the late fifties when I first became aware that there was a group of psychologists interested in the phenomenon of this sort of human difference, especially these less gross differences between people, I had very mixed reactions.

On the one hand, I was immediately paranoid that their speculative attention on behavior was moving toward where my secret self was “holed up”, and on the other, I rather relished the idea that someone might be paying some thoughtful attention to my psychological needs. ..and I might be finally receiving the loving and admiring attention I sought.

In its way, reading this Fred Ross’s, [Managing Director of the Art Renewal project and its various expressive dimensions] defense of the painter William Bouguereau, was not too unlike the personal histories of Michael Jackson who sought to make himself over rather drastically and sought refuge in a courageously conceived complete body mask or that of Mr. Cohen, known as Borat, whose pyrotechnically critical and hyperactive display amidst the now shattered but formerly obscure social structure of what for centuries had been known as Kazakhstan. I understand that the Kazakhs have recently reacted creatively to Cohen’s buffoonery.

In his way Jeff Ross is as much an enigmatic psychological anomaly as these other two and, by definition should be eligible for the title of being a creative individual, defined so only statistically, however. An irrepressible instinct, however, tells me Ross is really at the other end of the Bell curve describing any particular population along the “creativity continuum” for it is his energetic resistance to the concept of an organic cultural experience that really distinguishes him and his attachment to a dot along the cultural historical line which singles him out, or, to afford him the relatively forgiving interpretation we might view his efforts as merely game playing with a set of biases and prejudices characteristic of the unenlightened in his troublesome effort to keep them dumb-downed and to provide entertainment for a few who gain self assurance through the ridicule of others, such as Cohen.

Or, to use the most generous “on the other hand” options for the phenomenon of cultural evolution Fred Ross’s ideas may be likened to the song of a European robin, delightful and enchanting to the ear of the human being but a harsh warning and threat to another robin…or so the human being supposes. For sure, his exposition may be as valuable to the requirements of mental exercise as any other, or can that be?

For those who may not be accustomed to the structure of academic intellectual behavior he might appear very convincing, but, in point of fact, his intellectual behavior is about as admirable as that of Jerry Fallwell who maintains, among many other things, that “homosexuality is so reprehensible that not even cats and dogs engage in it”, an attitude which attributes anthropomorphic moral attitudes to other species. Actually, in that regard, observation of non-human animal behavior tells me that those animals are more consistently moral than human beings. Although I have heard of scientific observations of colonies of monkeys where some families of monkeys have been known to carry on traditions of murdering members of other families, a kind of monkey mafia.

If recent DNA discoveries are correct some of man’s more admired attributes, such as a bigger brain, may be attributed to the long-considered social “undesirable” known as Neaderthal. Since they, as a species, have disappeared in the advance of the homosapien we might well wonder whether that simian characteristic mentioned above may have remained in the human character and may not have been bred out and may account for the disappearance of the Neanderthal after the human had accomplished Neanderthal semen theft. Also, since it has been ascertained that women who are successful in getting the man they want are generally more intelligent than the man they get the making of a more intelligent human and eliminating the Neaderthal could have been a tactical maneuver. All of which raises the question as to whether having a larger brain, and therefore supposedly being more intelligent, is sufficient equipment to overcome the call of the erotic.

Well, we can at least be thankful Fallwell didn’t include geese, whom, I understand, in their goosey culture accept a gander totally who may be unexperimentally committed to an attachment to other males.

Even Fallwell might possibly be forgiven because of his ignorance but a person such as Margaret Meade cannot for having told an audience of 3,000 at the University of Minnesota that she had judged there to be no homosexuality in Samoa on the basis of a laughter response to her question to two young males whom she had seen walking side by side, with their hands on each others; buttocks. From an academically trained individual such conclusions are unbelievable; such conclusions from such evidence are intolerable.

These sorts of tangential exceptions to the rules of investigation observed by Fred Ross others may find of interest, but even within the narrower confines of Ross’s subject matter, 19^th century art, but including acceptable roots into the 18th and 17th and 16^th centuries he writes as though he hopes the reader may not detect important biographical, art critical and historical exceptions to the conclusions he states.

I have tentatively come to the understanding that Ross’ argumentative technique in addition to battling straw men beneath windmills is so evidentially migratory that any intellectual opponent could not argue with him for he would find that one argument of thought would be knotted up with yet another and would find the effort just too fatiguing.

Where there is no intellectual honesty and goodwill there is no discussion. Ross’s argumentative technique is hydra-like in that respect. One is cut down and immediately there are seven more irrelevancies appearing.

In the midst of Brian Shapiro’s presentation as part of The Great Bouguereau Debate he did emerge with a clear statement with which I am able to agree. It was that:

“noticeably, academic paintings are not realistic, nor were they ever intended to be.”

And so one finds Ross’s admiration for the Bouguereau realism as compared to that of Courbet more than mystifying, that is, in terms of the definition of “realism”.

Early on I was beginning to think that the person who called my attention to Ross’s existence was doing so partly, with tongue in cheek and partly mischievously to test the quality of my perceptions and the cleverness of my rebuttals. Openly admiring someone else’s intelligence can be a very threatening event.

We might begin in ARTRENEWAL.COM’s statement of philosophy with Fred Ross’s claim that… “We at the Art Renewal Center have fully and fairly analyzed their [modern art critics] theories and have found them wanting in every respect,[unidentified} devoid of substance (unexplained) and built on a labyrinth of easily disproved fallacies, suppositions and hypotheses *(left undone).

Referring to exponents of 19^th Century neo-classical concepts Ross states that “these 20^th Century art world heroes managed to protect and preserve the core technical knowledge of western art. Somehow, they succeeded to train a few dozen determined disciples. [Who?] Today, many of these former students, have established their own schools or ateliers and are currently training many hundreds more. [Who?]This movement is now expanding exponentially.[exponentially (sic?) seems rhetorical to me] [Where?] They are regaining the traditions of the past, so that art can once again more forward on a solid footing. We are committed in everyway possible, [so it would appear], to record, preserve and perpetuate this priceless knowledge,”

My goodness! Ross sounds like ‘Professor’ Harold Hill in Meredith Wilson’s “The Music Man” personified, featuring himself as the second, third or fourth John the Baptist.

Ross has forgotten, or he never knew, that the period in art he so admires had its roots in works that were very much more primitive, in some ways technically unsophisticated, and certainly romantically unattached . but he neglects to tell us how what he admires got to where they are from where they came.

But he does tell us that “We have painstakingly unraveled an understanding of how and why great traditional art nearly perished.

Men like Henry James, Frederic Chopin and Charles Dickens idolized these academic masters. Could such men that we all agree [if we were all in agreement this discussion would not take place]were beyond question [there is always a question]great artistic geniuses themselves have had such bad taste [taste?] so as to idolize art that today's ideologues would have us believe was so bad?”{so the taste of James, Dickens and Chopin should be mine, and everyone else? I should uncritically follow King Wenceslaus? My own perceptions have no value?).What is one to do with the certainty that some of the more ignorant today know things that those :”geniuses” could not have known and Ross would have us ignore our own perceptions?

"A novel is in its broadest sense a personal, a direct impression of life: that, to begin with, constitutes its value, which is greater or less according to the intensity of the impression." (from The Art of Fiction, 1885) The emphasis is mine,

How, I wonder, might Ross explain this statement by James in the light of the over-all nature of Bouguereau’s oevre?

With Bouguereau chosen as his chief exemplary support I cannot help but suspect that Ross, to give him more credit than he might be due, is in a highly sophisticated way “pulling our leg”. He tells us, and to a great extent it is true that: Bouguereau is one of the chief villains in tales told by modern historians. I shall especially refer to him in this discussion, for he is being increasingly revered by thousands of scholars, collectors, curators and art lovers as one of history's all time greats, ultimately deserving to stand shoulder to shoulder with Leonardo, Caravaggio and Rembrandt.

Bouguereau. “Alma Parentis”

Leonardo da Vinci: “The Last Supper”

Michelangelo da Caravaggio: “Rest on the Flight Into Egypt”

Rembrandt Van Rijn: “The Night Watch”

Of the works by Rembrandt, daVinci, and Caravaggio pictured here by artists specifically mentioned by Ross as being accompanied in their stature as an equal with Bouguereau, the quartet standing “shoulder to shoulder” [sounds rather like “Stought-hearted Men” by Oscar Hammerstein ] although they all refer to events in the past only one, the Caravaggio, shows any evidence at all of having referenced the suprahuman, that is, something approaching the divine, and even that character, the Angel playing the violin, is sufficiently earthbound to being vaguely suggestive of mystifying erotic play.

Da Vinci’s interpretation of the Last Supper bears no indication whatever of this being a supremely spiritual event. Only what knowledge the observer brings to the work bears any suggestion of its spiritual significance it is, otherwise, totally reasonable earthly event.

However, on the other hand Bouguereau lifts the everyday carnal to the level of an unreachable and incontestably virginal perfection. No materiality could possible sullen this perfect ideal. I offer the point of view that this is not reality. and on that ground alone Ross’s argument falls apart. It is not the reality most of us know. It might be the ideal reality we could desire.

Even we, today, are able to accept this Bouguereau work as a metaphor of parenting, but it is entirely conceivable that were some observer unable to read the meaning of metaphor would take heated exception to one woman being so flagrantly permissive as to give suckle to so many children, to say nothing of possibly having given them birth. Fortunately for the 19th century audience the range of color within the collection of children is sufficiently narrow not to cause too much disturbance,…but IT IS THERE!

Henry James, I am certain would have detected the subliminal enticements of a beautifully rounded womanly breast and the carnivore appetites brought out by the sight of a kid’s butt.

Let me state in the strongest possible terms that the art history textbooks since the middle of this century are filled with nothing but distortions, half truths and out and out lies in their description of this era. As I recall, from somewhere, one of the Victorian inventions was a groinal cage equipped with sharpened spikes to deflate any nightly erection some adolescent might experience …so much for Ross’s claiming James as an ally when James is not around to contest the mischaracterization.. They have failed in their responsibility as historians to report the truth of what occurred as objectively as possible. These texts amount to no less than propaganda brochures for modern art.

Well, this comment by Ross might very well be true, there are exhibitions catalogues and texts which do approach the proselytizing level of communication and while that is regrettable what damage might be done can easily be corrected in a sentence or two…orally delivered. Whereas, the written word, especially one as complex as the subject of this essay requires, as the reader can readily see, a considerably more thought out response and a consequently longer period to read and comprehend. In such a situation TIME is an ally to the original commentator and those under attack at a disadvantage.

As for reporting only the verifiable facts of history I think there might be a problem there as well. I am certain that there are different levels of certainty and probability as well and, besides, there always seem to be facts that are later discovered and . I would suggest, that hypothesizing often leads to their discovery,

Eugene Delacroix: “Liberty leading the People”

This Delacroix painting is most assuredly included in most, if not in all, texts on the history of Modern Art as, perhaps, an example of the mind set that had seeped into many aspects of the 19^th century thinking which questioned behaviors and attitudes in a number of areas.

Even the nature of the graphic presentation, the composition of the work, suggests the turmoil that is its subject as well. I see very little significant difference between this image and some of those coming out of Iraq and parts of Africa.

Where as the Bouguereau painting “Orestes Attacked by The Furies” looks more like the complex choreography of a staged ballet movement than an assault.

William Bouguereau: “Orestes and The Furies”

One might well ask why does it seem that Ross has chosen to ignore these aspects of modern art history which have been part of the modern student’s understanding of the development of modern expression all along, an expression that could well have led to some of the work of Franz Kline, where, in the absence of any specific subject, Kline could very well, in such an untitled work, have been referencing generic “violence”.

Now, were there to be a question of the merits of explicit over implicit violence in a work of art we might even get sidetracked by which was which in terms of either in the Bougureau or the Kline.

The Bourguereau, however, in addition to the physical positions of the participants approach that of the ballet, the exquisite rendering of the anatomy somehow may have the power to distract the viewer and lead him, or her, into an erotic fantasy. Such would be unlikely to happen with the Kline. The strength and force of the gesture is too “explicit” for that kind of mental wandering. So, we might well ask, which tells us more effectively about violence?

Franz Kline: “Untittled”

It is no coincidence that some of the greatest works of art of the 19th century came from these two societies [The French and the American]. And with these changing ideas, art too changed, generating the many new groups and styles. There were the Realists who showed the nobility of the common man *straining under the yoke of a hard life. They tried to show rural life, as it really was.

*I must react strongly to this phrase. I have known not so few a number of “common” men and very few of them, indeed, were noble in the ethical, genealogical, or moral sense, for that matter the same might be true about most of the financially “uncommon” men I have known. Additionally, I see nothing but self-interest in using the phrase. This expression is generally hypocritical in the meanest way.

Then there were the Idealists and Romantics, who celebrated all humanity in keeping with the democratic principles [which ones does he have in mind, I wonder] and a respect for human rights and dignity. Bouguereau was undoubtedly the greatest of this group.

The emphasis is mine and made in order to draw attention to the work of other 19^th.entury artists such as

Courbet:

Gustave Courbet: “Cows”

Who also did this

Gustave Courbet: Le Sommeille

Wherein the decomposition of flesh and possibly character are explored, but, in all fairness, to Courbet and Ross’s theory, not to the extent illustrated by Lovis Corinth (1858-1925). [we might recall, at this point that Bouguereau lived between 1825-1905]. All of this should bring us to the point of understanding that one of the items we are dealing with is the item of choice..It might be a stretch to claim that these two were contemporaneous. It might be more exact to claim that there was a generation between them, yet how these attitudes changed in that generation! If “realism” is the ideal, then it would seem that Corinth exceeds Bouguereau in his expression of realism.

And we also have

Gustave Courbet: “Nude with Parrott”

Not only in attitude, but in the subliminal suggestions of the subject as well there is just the hint of something less than completely abstinate.

In the Lovis Corinth nude, shown below, there is little reason to suppose that this is a portrait of a woman who has lived, already, a full and probably satisfying life. there is no Bougueresque pretense that she is a divinely perfect being, perfect both physically and spiritually. This is not a portrait of a notion of perfection, not is it an allegory or a metaphor…it is simply a portrait.

Lovis Corinth: Reclining Nude

As to the matter of choice, Fred Ross has vastly more opportunities than did Bouguereau to select pertinent historical facts who probably was not at all concerned about them as he went about selecting the subject matter of his paintings. But Ross has chosen to discuss the ethics of art historians and, in this process, chosen, as well, to criticize them for not including all historical facts.

Perhaps these lazy historians did not include all the facts, perhaps they did, but there is no way for us to tell since Ross fails to name them, but I am including some they might have included. I am doing so simply to show that had these unnamed historians included pertinent historical facts Corinth and van Gogh as well as Courbet would be among those facts.

Now Fred Ross, in the 21st century is claiming the superiority of the classical 19^th century expression over the early 20^th and, from what we can understand claiming as well, the superiority of idealized abstraction of the characteristics of the human body over the realistic representation of them. Ross’s vocabulary and logic do not coincide and so it would appear that his logic is faulty for if abstracting elements from the vision of the human body is permissible for Bourguereau it should also, ethically, be allowed other painters.

The fact that, technically speaking, Corinth actually abstracted more visual information about the human body than did Bouguereau should only go to indicate that Ross’s understanding of the process of abstraction is in error. The relationship between what we generally term as :”realism” is highly correlated to the process of abstraction. In short, the more that is abstracted from the subject before the painter the more realistic the result. While this is not the usual interpretation of the process., it is the correct one.

Vincent van Gogh who died in 1890 and is, therefore a nineteenth Century artist

Vincent van Gogh self portraits and “Starry Night”

Vincent van Gogh: “Self Portrait”

Vincent Van Gogh: (after J.F.Millet)

Additionally, the Victorian Age through freedom of the press and artists and writers of the time brought to public opinion the plight of the downtrodden. They shined a clear light on the unfair treatment of women, children and minorities-most of which had been inherited from prior generations and prior centuries.

In this regard I do not feel free to criticizes Ross’ comments. How absolutely true they may be, in practice, I do not know, but certainly, I think it likely that today’s awareness of these social problems certainly grew out of the observations of writers and artists and perhaps a few sensitive politicians who, for some reason seem to be somewhat more obscure..

However, within this observation made by Ross I sense some continuing blindness related to what might be called the limitlessness, or boundarylessness of emotion. In the work of Bouguereau whom Ross identifies as “the preeminent 19^th century painter” we see nothing more than the picturequeness of poverty as in “The water Girl” and the arabesque nature of torment as in “Orestes and the Furies”. These observations should raise questions about the nature of the :”realism” so prized by Fred Ross. It should also raise questions as to whether the realism of Bouguereau is the same realism as in the others already mentioned.

Peter Paul Rubens: “Bacchus”

Peter Paul Rubens “The Fall of the Damned” “Den Hollensturz der Verdammten”

At this point I should like to make a point. I think it is an important one. Ross maintains that the period he so admires rose out of the accomplishments of the previous 400 years, completely forgetting that they also had a historical development. To use his own words at this point they were:

In the two hundred years that separates the work of Rubens (1640) from that of Bourguereau (1840) does Ross expects us to understand that Bourguereau has cleansed and purified the vision of artists, that, to use the historical foundation of Rubens as a basis the Calvinist purity has won out over the Catholic baroque sensuality? In measuring “reality” how much is there of it in the seemless excellence of flesh as seen by Bougereau (the husband not the wife) compared to the decomposing cellulite of Rubens? With Bougereau there maybe the hope for such perfection of fleshly beauty, in Rubens there is the reaslization that it possesses its own putrescence.

Well, so much for Ross’s idealized realism of the nineteenth and earlier centuries.

We have no argument with the claim of a degree of technical excellence, but is there not also technical excellence in Salvador Dali?

Salvador Dali, “The Persistence of Memeory”

Rather than dumping on the Victorians, one might just as readily credit them and their era with setting in motion all of the societal changes that led to the undoing of most of these injustices. It could also be noted that the development of a social consciousness and its attendant compassion for the

Edvard Munch: “Thoughtful”

the experiences of the individual together with the work of 19^th century psychoanalysts called our attention to that reality.

In that connection one should not forget the expressions of Edvard Munch who, while certainly capable of being a realistic in Ross’s terms, chose not to particularize the emotions ostensibly being felt by the subject, but chose, rather, to assist the observer in understanding how someone in psychological torment often experiences a perception of a distorted environment. We have a right to ask whether this sensation is not also an aspect of reality and as eligible for artistic expression as Ivan Le Lorraine Albright

Andrew Wyeth: Ana Christina

Even beyond this, he [Ross is speaking of Bouguereau here] captured the very souls and spirits of his subjects. They come to life like no previous artist has ever before or ever since achieved. He didn't just paint their flesh better; he captured the subtlest tender nuances of personality and mood. He took no short cuts.

[I Wonder how Ross could possibly have missed portrait of Anna Christina by Andrew Wyeth, or, perhaps, he does not see how Wyeth has portrayed her “spirit and soul.”]

Every composition is incredibly original with perspectives and foreshortening and interweaving of figures more complex and successful than of any other artist of his time. His paintings never feel busy. There are never unnecessary elements strewn around. The landscaping is rendered just enough to focus the viewer's attention on the figure. He masterfully brought together the elements of exquisite drawing, incredible coloration, perspective, brilliant modeling and composition, all working together in harmony. All elements reinforce the emotional thrust of each work. To achieve this, he developed his own idiosyncratic techniques, often creating new methods on the spot to solve an immediate problem. [Here Ross describes this process as a virtue, but decries it when the results are other than consistent with his bias]There have been extensive analytic treatises written by a number of recent scholars trying to technically dissect how Bouguereau managed his totally unique magic.

So not only was it untrue that Bouguereau, Burne-Jones, Alma-Tadema and their brethren were irrelevant; the exact opposite was the case. He and the other academic artists were at the cutting edge of the changes that were occurring in Western civilization, asserting that each individual was unique and valuable. [Then it must be asked why Fred Ross does not follow the same principle he here espouses when the matter concerns those of whom he disapproves.. To my knowledge it has not been that others have thought Bouguereau, Burn-Jones and Alma-Tadema irrelevant except in so far as history has indeed indicated that they are not, as Ross claims them to have been, at the cutting edge of any significant art movement. Not even among those classes of people who might be expected to appreciate the imagery.

Burn-Jones

Alma Tadema, The Staircase

Alma-Tadema



Alma-Tadema

Duchamp's Nude

We must realize that modern art could never have existed save on the back of the Humanist art that preceded it.

This probably quite true, I think without a doubt, so one must ask why, having realized this connection does Ross wish, after all is said and done, to deny its validity? It seems that he is telling us he feels that only certain types of expression are legitimate.

Certainly Picasso was far wealthier when he died than Bouguereau at his death. Rubens, Gainsborough, Church, Rodin, Boucher, deKooning and Frank Stella all made or are making substantial sums on their art. The fact is that most often, it is the wealthy who buy art. Rather than using this fact to condemn the artists, it should be the basis for praising those individuals who recognized and helped support greatness. It is definitely not certain that patrons know what they are doing other than buying prestige and fame. I have known only three collectors in my life who gave any convincing evidence that they knew what they What would the Renaissance have been without Lorenzo de Medici?

I fail to understand this supposed correlation between greatness as an artist and one’s bank account. I certainly hope there isn’t any for my bank account is very small indeed.

While it is assumed that Bouguereau did not like Renoir and Monet and Renoir didn't like Bouguereau, it is hardly an indictment against either of their works. Rembrandt hated Rubens and Michelangelo despised Leonardo. It's an old story - genius is often intolerant of other genius that is oriented somewhat differently.[Should we understand from this comment that Ross sees Renoir and Monet as geniuses?]This said, however, it is not true that Bouguereau was scorned by all of the Impressionists. In fact, at the Universal Exposition in Paris on New Years Eve of the year 1900, a newspaper reporter approached Degas and Monet who were conversing together, and asked who in their opinion would most likely be considered the greatest 19th century artist in the year 2000. After a brief debate they both agreed on one man: William Bouguereau.

This may just as well have been a comment about the expectations both painters had concerning prevailing tastes, not that they were giving Bouguereau the credit of having been a better painter.

Personal animosities between and among artists, creative people in general, may have very little to do at all with one’s possibly profound respect for another’s talent, but only their physical presence and social behavior. I do not know what the chemical reaction actually is, but had Alfred Noble found out, his efforts at discovering dynamite might have been shortcutted.

From my point of view one of the more provocative statements coming out of the last half of the 19^th century was Cezanne’s comment about Monet. “Monet”, he said “ is only an eye, but what an eye”. It isn’t the comment that involves Monet that concerns me, for I quite agree, it is that part that suggests there is something more to the graphic arts than sight. It is that insight, as expressed by Cezanne, that should lead us into an understanding of the explosive nature of the creative insights that comment has led us. But according to Ross:

Our 20th century has marked a period that celebrated the bizarre, the novel and the outrageous for its own sake. The defining parameter of greatness to Modernism is "has it ever been done before," "Is it totally original where there is no derivation from any former schools of art," "does it outrage," "does it expand the definition of what can be called art?" I propose to you today that if everything is art then nothing is art. If I call a table a chair have I expanded the definition of the word table? Would this make me brilliant? If I call a hat a shirt have I expanded the definition of hat? If I call a nail a hammer, have I expanded the definition of the word nail? Am I now a genius? If I call screeching car wheels great music have I expanded the definition of music?

THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!

Just because other fields of discipline are hard to understand by the layman, does not in anyway justify the incomprehensibility, lunacy and fakery of most modern art.[This sounds like Ross is saying that where art is concerned the ordinary man should have it easy and not be required to think, that also would suggest, that the artist who makes nonsense stuff is justified because he is entertaining the mindless.]

Do we really want the works of Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko and Willem DeKooning to be representatives of the best of what mankind can produce? They are a hoax. And the public has been for too long subjected to the farce of modernism that has captured and laid siege to civilization's museums and institutions

Today ...

The recapture of this rich artistic heritage from near destruction has been a monumental task being attempted by a handful of living artists. Over the last 6 decades they and many who are now gone have barely but successfully protected, preserved and perpetuated it for the sake of our children and future generations.

After decades of being mocked and ignored, finally the winds have changed. Now over the last 20 years there has been an enormous turn around in the perception of historians, museums[sic?], galleries[sic?] and collectors[sic?] in their attitudes towards 19th Century realism and concomitantly of contemporary realism. Finally in the last ten years the fortunes of these artists have rapidly turned upwards, and a great many of them are making solid livings, some booked a year or two out on commissions.

www.tcp.com.mt

Fred Ross is currently Executive Administrator of the Committee to write the Catalog Raissonee of William Bouguereau. He is Chairman of the Art Renewal Center, and has been published or interviewed in the American Arts Quarterly, the California Art Club, Forbes Magazine, Artnews, New Jersey Monthly, the Victorian Society in America, and the Classical Realist Journal. He has been a featured speaker at Sotheby's, the Dahesh Museum, the Wadsworth Atheneum, and University of Memphis. He holds a Master's in Art Education from Columbia University, and along with his wife Sherry owns one of the foremost collections of 19th Century European paintings.

COMMENTS ON Ernst Gombrick's 1958 TYRANNY ARTICLE
By PAUL HENRICKSON © 2005

Ernest Gombrick's begins his revelatory article “The Tyranny of Abstract Art” which appeared in the April 1958 issue of “The Atlantic Monthly” with the confession that he and his art historian colleagues were, perhaps unintentionally, responsible for having misled the public by the use of language which failed to adequately describe the facts of creative artistic production.

In consequence, the metaphoric language employed may have seduced the reader. Although Gombrick's refers to art historians specifically and not to art critics, it is, I have found the art critic who is more likely to be guilty of a seductive use of language than is the art historian.

After all, it is the job of the historian, at least nominally so, to deal with the sequence of artistic events. The function of the critic goes beyond that by hypothesizing the reasons certain artists selected approaches to their craft that distinguished them from other artists and what the meanings of those changes in direction have meant or might mean. Both the art historian and the art critic might respond to the formal characteristics of a work of art, the historian as a means of determining the proper chronology of the piece and the critic as evidence of the motivation which gave issue to the change. In this regard the social environment out of which the works have been produced is of some importance, but, in addition, so are the more personal and, perhaps more hidden, reasons why a particular change was adopted over some other. It is this last which borders on the personal psychology of the artist involved.

In short, the main job of the art historian is to establish what the historical facts might be. The art critic’s responsibility is more complex and more variable and controversial in its results. Additionally, the art critic’s ability to express himself in comprehensible language is of prime importance since often what he may be expected to convey are the non-verbal meanings inherent in a mute object. This is tricky. Exactly how tricky it is, is probably one of the major reasons why Gombrick's wrote what he wrote.

In his second paragraph Gombrick's lays before us yet another challenge to the reader by reminding us that there are critics who believe that painting in this last century became too easy, “a mere splashing of colors.”

The Creative Interests of Kirk Hughey ...

Kirk Hughey: “Grey”

Kirk Hughey: “Abstraction”

Kirk Hughey: Teal Rider

Constance Counter: untitled

Well, it would be possible for me to assert that the belief is not mistaken for there are painters whose works give testimony to support that belief. Yet I feel impelled to point out that great works of art are neither conceived nor created, necessarily, out of painstaking effort or physical strain.

Edvard Munch records the story of the banker who had commissioned him to do a family portrait and who after the thirty minutes it took Munch to complete the work the banker complained that the painter hadn’t spent enough time on the work to warrant the large sum of money he was asking. Much is said to have responded that it had taken him thirty years to be able to expertly paint the work in thirty minutes. This seems like a very good reply and, in this case, quite probably honest.

The banker’s observation is, in a limited way, justified at least from the amount of evidence he had available at the time, but Munch’s argument is stronger. It is not infrequently reported that a work of art “just flowed” from the artist’s brush, the writer’s pen or the sculptor’s warm wax. It can be rightly assumed, however, that such fluidity of artistic expression does come from a lengthy period of effort during which the artist does, at least metaphorically, sweat blood.

The development of an expert technique does take not only physical energy but a great deal of critical mental evaluation as well. A handyman and gardener whom I had employed who had just seen me produce a painted wooden panel using stencils and spray cans of paint in about ten minutes exclaim in near disbelief, “you really are an artist”, once astounded me! I was stunned not because this very basic personality had uttered an aesthetic judgment but that the judgment seemed to carry with it the idea that an artist is someone who can perform at will and with ease.

I am still stunned by the comment because it seems to resist analysis. The apparent ease comes only with concentration and intelligent selection. It is also the result of long periods of trial and effort as well as painful peer criticism and difficult-to-bare self-analysis. It is probably this sort of experience that accounts for some of the unconventional social behavior of many artists. An artists’ audience often has difficulty in relating to the person of the artist because the audience has little understanding and no sympathy for what the artist has had to go through in order to reach what he has reached. It is this sort of thing that may explain why Peter Paul Rubens is less an artist than, say, Michelangelo Buonarotti, El Greco, or Caravaggio.

Michelangelo: “slave”

El Greco: “Toledo”

Caravaggio: “Crucifixion of Peter”

Gombrick's reminds us that one of the more frustrating experiences is to be entirely free to do what one wishes, free from any restrictions or constraints. This seems to suggest that the individual is motivated primarily by rebellion. Thorndyck’s stimulus response theories of learning may dovetail this concept nicely, but there seems to be an important item missing in this theory and that might be the role of curiosity, simple, bald curiosity. A curiosity so demanding of satisfaction at times that some individuals have been known to so without food, sleep and companionship. If one takes, by way example, Ludwig Beethoven, who was deaf, totally deaf, was largely forgetful of other of life’s amenities in order to focus on the composition of music…music that he would never get to hear except, perhaps, in his mind, one might well wonder if there had not been an extremely compelling reason for him to concentrate on the development of a talent that had been so victimized by the situation of his birth from a syphilitic mother. There is evidence in the work of Carravagio that suggests that he, too, may have been driven into producing a large amount of work in a short period of time as a result of his having been aware of fate have dealt him a joker card.

It is this curiosity and intense involvement in something which some have described as “play” which needs a more subtle explanation. The word “play” seems to disregard the very serious nature of the involvement. I suspect that the word “play” may have been initially chosen simply to distinguish it from the idea of “work” which carried with it the idea of an exterior force pressuring the individual to produce and the concept of their being an interior pressure compelling one to produce was not yet ready for consideration. It is now, however.

Such an intense concentration of energy on the production of a creative work of art can be more fatiguing than an eight-hour day of straight labor. It has also been noted that once the fever of creation has taken hold of an individual that that individual may work until he drops. The physical body, it seems at such times, can hardly keep pace with the flow of images. This had been described as the “fire of creation”. I do not fully understand why the image of fire in connection with creation should be so meaningful except that destructive fires often precede creative reconstruction.

Gombrick's is such a fertile writer. I cannot get past the third paragraph before a third rich idea is expressed. Gombrick's describes the state of the artist as he stands in front of his canvas “facing the existential nightmare, the responsibility for every decision, every move, without any convention to guide him, any expectation to live up to except the one of creating something recognizably himself.” The emphasis is mine because it is this that is the artist’s major, if not his only, responsibility. What else can the artist honestly do but to create from what he is able and willing to create from what he has been given or developed. Now, the key word in that sentence is “honestly”.

Paul Shapiro: “Tap Root”

(The reader is invited to consider the meaning of the above text in the light of the graphic evidence offered by Hughey, Counter and Shapiro.)

II realize that such a claim can be and has frequently been used to trivialize the artistic effort generally and to legitimize the culturally destructive efforts of dilettantes who seek the patronage of bored, unintelligent, wealthy sources which seek out the opportunities that will allow their egos to ride the crests of fashion. Such are the fatuous.

The effort the creative artist makes to reach into that depth of being where the deposit of universal prime evil soul-knowledge resides is awesome and exhausting, at least for the one who achieves it. For the observer who is able to participate in this moment of sharing it is an ennobling experience. Not many works of art achieve that level. As for examples that do achieve it I would include the following: Michelangelo’s “Last Judgment”, Rodin’s “Burghers of Calais” and Mestrovic’s “Job”.

Michelangelo: “The Last Judgment”

August Rodin: “Burghers of Calais”

Ivan Mestrovic: “Job”

Now, if the truth were told, I dislike the phrasing in the foregoing paragraph. It carries with it much too much of the elegant language of the Victorians, too much of the tone of the romantic, the mysterious and the ambivalent. Why, it might well be asked, doesn’t one just say what is “good” and what is “bad”, and get the job done?

One doesn’t do that because one cannot do that and also it should not be done because it is not certain, given the various natures of human beings, that language can convey what it is intended to convey. Why does a woman ask a man if he loves her and then when he tells her she doesn’t believe him…and it makes no difference what his answer is she will still not believe him?

Also, I resent having to submit to the weak resolution that there are some things that are ineffable, so I, and others, keep trying. In addition to all that, language also is not static, it is very mutable indeed.

Matisse is supposed to have stated that he wanted to create art for the common man who, when he came home from work he would not be confronted by an item that demanded his concentration, attention and accumulated knowledge to be appreciated. If one were to judge Matisse’s success by his stated aim we would have to conclude that he failed…indeed he failed utterly. There is not point of view that would grant him the luxury of claiming success. He is a colossal failure.

Henri Matisse: “

Not only could one not ever, except by some unbelievable accident, find a Matisse in a common man’s house. In fact, it is highly doubtful that one could find a common man who would want a Matisse in his house. If his house held any paintings at all, they would be Rembrandts and something or other from the Pre-Raphaelites and then they wouldn’t be originals, but cheap prints.

Matisse: “Woman before a Window”

Rembrandt van Rijn: “self portrait”

Burne-Jones: “The Sea Depths”

Referring to Walter Pach, Gombrick's asks an awesome question; “Are those who oppose a false art of one kind safe from being imposed upon by another?” Gombrick's, in that paragraph at least, escapes from being compelled to answer the question by diverting our attention from the primary issue and calling us to consider the fact that there were few economic incentives for a copyist to focus his attention where there was no significant market for those images.

The real issue, it seems to me, is not whether there might be an economic incentive, but why is it that the images seem of more value than the work, the original work itself, which supports the image. How else might I put this?

I think it necessary to firstly separate the idea of an “image” being a “shown subject” such as a still life or a figure from the more basic idea of an image being the structure of the work.

We must include the possibility that an “image” might also simply be the way something, anything, “looks”. The “look” of a Hans Hoffmann, for example, which is the ”image” the Hoffmann offers us, is as valid a “look” or “image” as an Ingres’ “look” or “image”.

Hans Hofmann: “Golden Wall”

Ingres: “Pauline de Bearn”

Let me try another way. A woman has hired a gardener to work in the garden. At about mid-morning on an increasingly hot day he comes to the back door looking sweaty, a wet shirt under the arms and in the middle of the back and asks for ice water. In the early afternoon he returns wearing only his under shorts and sandals to ask for more ice water. Now the woman sees that the man is handsomely built and wonders how much warmer it might get in a few more hours.

The point of this little anecdote is this. What is important to the woman is the structure of the man. What should be of importance to the art critic and the art historian is the structure of the work.

Some of us are more practiced than others in seeing the figure hidden by the clothing but a good critic is able to accomplish this. This is one reason why it may be dangerous for them to appear in public for there are some people who feel something when they are being undressed and inspected for how they are really composed.

If one of these paintings has a degree of virtue greater than the other it may be the Hofmann because there is little doubt in the mind of the viewer as to what it is he is looking at. The average viewer may ask the question “But what is it?” We are sympathetic with that frustration which arises out of a centuries old inculcated expectation that a painting must be a painting OF something or it does not properly belong in the seventh heaven of works of genius.

The value of Hofmann over Ingres is that Hofmann the work he shows us is showing is only the work he shows us, whereas Ingres, with all due respect for his excellence draughtsmanship and control over the medium is presenting a disguised painting in the form of a beautiful two-dimensional woman. I suspect that were the painterly elements existing in the Ingres portrait were disattatched from the subject matter they describe and allowed to exist on their own they might be as valuable an aesthetic experience as is the Hofmann.

So, one may argue: ” But that is what art is all about…that is, artifice!”

And one counters with the argument: “but that is what other artists are trying to change, to free the creative spirit from the slavery of having to represent an image of something other than itself. In addition, to show that such an approach has as much, if not more, validity in its attempt to inform the human soul of values existing elsewhere as does the work of highly talented illustrators.”

My reaction to both Gombrick's and Pach in this regard is that while I concur with their descriptions I do not think them complete. For a further understanding of the participant influences we must, I believe, consider the nature of the readiness to receive, and understand, the message of the image.

If one has ever talked with a five year old about what his drawing represents it might have been noticed that frequently, so long as there is not much of a time lapse between when the drawing was done and the questioning about it, the child is quite ready to tell you the meaning of nearly every mark that he had made. Too much of a time laps and he probably wouldn’t understand what you meant by the question. The relationship, then, between the marks made and their meaning seems very intimately connected with the actual motor performance. Sometimes even adult actors have a problem in answering questions of that sort not too long after having left the stage. They will, however, be able to answer the question given time to reconstruct what they know intellectually about the role and to be able to recollect the experience of playing it in front of the foot lights. If a researcher has ever asked a long practicing artist whether or not an early work was indeed his they, may also have noticed some significant hesitation in responding to the question. What this speaks to, I believe, is a state of mind, during the period of creation, which is quite close to being a trance where the interrelationships between events have a logical relationship all their own quite other than such relationships occurring during normal relationship periods. It is quite another universe, indeed.

As a middle teenager, in my case it was a longer than usual period, I failed utterly to notice the semi-turgid male members on Breughel’s painting “The Peasant Dance” whereas, at about the same period in my life they were immediately obvious in the work of Paul Cadmus. Readiness for the experience seems to play a significant role in one’s understanding of it.

Pietre Breughel: “The Wedding Dance”

Paul Cadmus: “The Fleet’s In”

Recently a friend who delights in revealing the number of facets of meaning he sees in nearly every gem of a thought goes on, literally non-stop for two hours, without interruption, polishing all the facets of the gem and usually ending up with a mildly sardonic quip. He will get up to leave after a few musical notes emerge from his trouser’s groinal pocket and he gets called home for supper and very seriously extend his gratitude to his listener for a very interesting conversation indeed.

But the spousal reminder is only partially successful and he launches into a new aspect of the subject with as much enthusiasm as he had two hours previously. Actually, the effects of his contribution linger on for several hours after he leaves in the form of remembered aesthetic experiences and surprises.

All in all this fellow is, among other things, a performer, but his audience is necessarily limited to a cultured, literate and intellectually involved group of people. There may actually be more of such people than it might appear at first glance and the reason we fail to meet them is because they have learned it is safer to be silent than witty.

I recall that as a late teenager it had taken me months of daily contact with one Monet landscape before I suddenly, and I do mean suddenly, experienced the visual meaning of all those green and blue dots. The dots had been on that particular canvas for at least three generations before I experienced them. I had not been able to make sense out of that visual chaos because my expectations for the making of symbolic representations had been linear and focused on the contour of an object and not eidetically trained to focus on light rather than the object. It was not the dots that shifted, it was my mental focus. One must be ready to receive the meaning before the process of meaningful communication can take place.

These sorts of experiences continue and can be the source of considerable humor if the manner of cultural conflict is not too severe. These sorts of things are a matter of cultural exposure and there are many cultures with smaller populations within what one generally considers to be a national one.

What my talkative friend mentioned before he left and strongly indicated that he wouldn’t be able to complete all he had to say had to do with the matter of semiotics. It was fully 20 minutes before he did leave, but it was all-worthwhile. I, too, had for some time, wondered about the academics’ interest in semiotics and wondered what they might have in mind to do with it.

The subject is very wide, including such things as directional signs for traffic, comfort stations for men or women, internationally packaged cooking instructions, the facial and body movements which, generally, only an initiate can understand and frequently lead to serious misinterpretation. The ways of miming “no” and “yes” would take one around the world and be worth a liberal education. A series of silent films of men and women in various cultures arguing with each other would be a treasure trove for any choreographer researching the meaning of movement.

In short, and without doubt, there exists a language of aesthetics and it is not to man’s credit that he has ignored researching and developing this aspect of communication.

In sum, then, it will be helpful to remember that the ”goodness” or the badness” of a work of art can only be appropriately judged by the effectiveness of the signals that are transferred from the creator of the work to the receptor. I realize that this notion may be found offensive by those who may have a more structured idea of achievement, but in all fairness to ourselves and to the many faceted aspects of the environment in which we live all things are not everything to all people. This statement should not be construed as a willingness to accept everything and anything, but rather, that before a judgment is made, we delay decisions until we have checked more out than what we thought we needed to do. Extend the parameters of the discipline and make them as flexible as an amoeba.

Gombrick's additionally discusses Pach’s idea of “snobbism” and tells us that the society to which Pach had reference allowed entrance into “noble” circles by virtue of some intellectual refinement. Gombrick's observes that the word “snobbism” implies the existence of a nobility and that of a hierarchical society. Such a society does exist. In fact, many of them exist simultaneously and it isn’t at all certain that a member of one noble group would wish to associate with another noble group. The existence of such elitist groups within a largely “democratic” society needs to be explored along with the distinct possibility that it may be one or more of the elitist groups which may be the seminal causes for the society as a whole to develop.
The very notions of democracy any society may possess may be the root cause for the suppression of elitist groups needed for the continued expansion of democratic ideals.

However, the preferential treatment of some groups in the theory that past disadvantages must be balanced out in order to level the contemporary playing field will fail in its objective by demoralizing one of the most treasured qualities of social ambition…consensual agreement as to worth. The maker has to believe he has done well and the society must understand what he has done. Reward on the basis of something other than real achievement has the same effect as a leaky car battery; it corrodes everything with which it comes into contact.

After a well-explored history of his frustration Gombrick's, seemingly out of patience, states that the much applauded exploration and experiment in the visual arts tolerated at the time of his writing must come to an end as we develop “standards for success and failure”. I, in part, agree with him, but I personally need room in which to change my mind in the event of the appearance of new evidence.

One very important “new evidence” is not, as Gombrick's assumes that abstract art is the same as non-objective art. They are not the same, but as Gombrick's implies even the intellectual elite has broadly accepted this intellectual error of which Gombrick's is a part.

It is my understanding that much of what irritates Gombrick's is a result of this intolerable intellectual misunderstanding. The verb “abstract” means to take from, to draw from, or to separate from much as one does when one produces a summary or a précis of a written document. There is no editorializing involved. There are NO alternatives available. The sense and the meaning of the document may not be altered. No argument is possible, none are permitted.

Contrary-wise, in the area of the graphic and plastic arts any departure from the visual reality was labeled an abstraction. To my knowledge there has never been an objection made concerning the questionable issue of whether all persons see the same object in the same “real” way, but even if we accept the gross generalization that “reality is reality and everyone agrees on that” there will still remain the fact that, by proper definition, anything that re-presents that reality has departed from the process of abstraction and started on the course of personal selection and editorializing. At that point it is the job of the art critic to determine, as best he can, the inspirational sources be they art historical, psychological, mercenary or whatever. It is further the critic’s job to assess the value of these changes.

Gombrick's laments the passing of a framework of convention that had been built up prior to the twentieth century and feels its passing has castrated the traditional function of the critic which was to comment on how well, or how badly, an artist had adhered to these conventions.

It has been another generation and a half since Gombrick's made these statements and, today, he may have felt obligated to add a few comments. Be that as it may, it can be safely said that while the function of the graphic and plastic arts have changed so have the responsibilities and opportunities of the critic in regard to them and since both the critic and the artist are in a position to alter the environment in which we all live it would be in the best interest of the rest of the populations to start to take an active and informed interest in their futures.

PRESENTING: STORM TOWNSEND

The Creativity Packet, as part of its program to introduce aesthetic concepts to a wider and perhaps less sophisticated audience than is customary is launching an exchange forum for the presentation of ideas concerning the role and the effect of visual products upon the audience for which they were intended, or the audience which comes by them by accident.

You are invited to participate in this program and, in exchange, we ask merely that you identify yourself by name and e-mail address and employ appropriate language in expressing your ideas.

Following are a few photographs of works by an English born sculptor living and working in Corrales, New Mexico. Express your opinions as clearly as you can and as concisely as possible. If the works shown here encourage you then write in greater detail and if you wish to include illustrations to enlarge upon your comments you will be limited to 5 MBs. This should give you plenty of space to adequately develop your thinking. Your responses should be sent to prh@tcp.com.mt and we ask you to expect responses from readers.

We regret that the images we have available do not reproduce as well as they should in order to make it possible for well-informed statements to be made for we have yet developed neither the techniques nor the contacts for the excellence we would prefer. Nevertheless, you are encouraged to do what you can with what is available. Considering that our aim is to develop critical abilities and, just as importantly, to help place the work of an artist into a context.

Home	Educational Practice	Business Approaches	Art Production	Conversation

		India Design