Draped to the Ankles

Art: A New History

I bought myself a present a few months ago, and now that the semester is over, I may actually have time to read (some) of it.

Paul Johnson has written a history of art based not on the art, but on the cultures and history that produced them. The idea itself is not new - only the attempt to create a survey-level book based on this idea is new.

No one claims that art is created in a vacuum. It is merely that traditional art history has focused on the art itself, and the artistic influences that produced them. There is nothing wrong with this idea, it is just a little dated. However, when we start to analyze art using outside influences, we start to read things into it that may or may not be there (see my post on Judith and Holofernes.) This is where the art of art history becomes a little dicey.

I have read the first chapter and a half of Johnson's book so far. His discussion of pre-historic art brings up some interesting points, but nothing new. The fact is, we know no facts about pre-historic art. We can ONLY study the art because we don't know what the culture was like or what was happening at the time. For this reason, any speculation about why cave paintings were made or figurines sculpted are just that: speculation. Any time you say with confidence that they were magical or religious figures, you are being disingenuous.

Johnson talks about cave paintings in terms of "gifted individuals" and entertainment. As good an explanation as any. He then goes on to talk about how cave art likely "promoted the birth of religious spirit." Even with the word "likely" added to make it less of a statement of fact, it is still reaching. Is it possible? Sure. Do we have any indication that it could be so? Not really. However, it is interesting to see the different ideas that people come up with.

One thing he says at the beginning of chapter 2 struck me as an interesting idea that could be developed in the future:

We have so far looked at art systems which came to a natural or mysterious end and had no continuity at all with what followed. Societies stopped producing cave art. Megalithic art ceased to be practised. From about 1000 B.C., for instance, Stonehenge was deserted..."

I have seen tantalizing evidence on TV archaeology shows about the existence of ancient civilizations buried under sands or drowned under ocean waters. The coast of India may once have had thriving cities that were destroyed 10000 years ago with the end of the ice age. And that story about Noah's Ark? There are those who believe that an entire civilization was wiped out when the waters of the Black Sea rushed into it's present location about 10000 years ago. How far had we advanced before the end of the ice age flooded our ancestors into our first dark age? I believe there is a lot out there to discover.

Art: A New History has proven interesting so far. My biggest compaint is that there aren't enough pictures. He continually mentions one piece of art or another without ever showing us what he is talking about. That is a criminal offence to my mind. I like the pictures.

Paintings that changed the world? - Part II

(Part I)

As I read through Paintings that Changed the World: From Lascaux to Picasso, I started to wonder if perhaps part of the problem was in translation. The original German title is Bilder, die die Welt bewegten: Von Lascaux bis Picasso, but the difference between the German and English title seems to be insignificant. The blurb on the back of the book says:

Paintings that Changed the World looks at ninety of history's greatest masterpieces to explain just what makes them great. Brief, informative essays examine each work from historic and cultural perspectives and offer intriguing observations and interesting anecdotes about the artists and their eras...

Boy, do I take issue with that statment. I really don't think the authors have given enough attention to the actual works they chose to include in this book. They spend more time discussing the event portrayed, or the artist who painted it, than they do talking about why that particular work is memorable.

Continuing with my review/revision of Paintings that Changed the World, I will skip several of the paintings they included, 1) because I don't think they are all that "earth-shaking" and 2) because I have no intention of re-writing the entire book. So, on to the the Byzantine Era.

Mosaics at San Vitale, Ravenna

The title the authors give to this entry is "From Brothel to Court: Masterpieces of art and architecture." They go on to describe Byzantium at this time, and the Emperor Justinian and his Empress Theodora, depicted here. The Emperor and Empress were definitely memorable; not only did Justinian build fine churches for the newly dominant Christian religion, he is also said to have married a prostitute.

The Byzantine historian Procopius said of her: "She bared her body front and back, inviting men to look at charms that are supposed to remain unseen, and became an expert in the techniques of exciting lust so as to hold worldly men in their thrall."

It is generally agreed that Procopius had issues, and probably exaggerated Theodora's lurid past to some extant. The authors are diligent in discussing Theodora, but nowhere do they actually mention the mosaic.

What makes this work so extraordinary is that up until this time, almost all church mosaics portrayed Christ or other sacred figures. There may have been a small figure of a donor added in a corner, but nothing like these grand processionals that flank the walls of San Vitale. Theodora and her women face Justinian and his court on the opposite wall. And if we are to believe even the tiniest hint of Procopius' vile rumours, Theodora would be the last person to be represented on the walls of a church.

The mosaics of San Vitale in themselves are breathtaking, from the image of Christ Enthroned to the Sacrifice of Abel and Melchisidec, the mosaics are unique in their richness of detail and expertise in execution. For more images, there's a Virtual tour of the main apse here, and a class slide list which covers many of the mosaics here (scroll down to the San Vitale section)

Next time: The Bayeaux Tapestry

Paintings that changed the world? - Part I

I recently purchased a book titled Paintings that Changed the World: From Lascaux to Picasso by Klaus Reichold and Bernhard Graf. It has lovely pictures, and I was curious to see which works they chose and why.

I have to say I was a bit disappointed. While I don't have very many quibbles with their choices, I don't think the authors explained why they chose the ones they did. Each painting has a page of text, but that text doesn't tell us what really makes the work so important. Here's an excerpt from the introduction:

Of course, no painting can really change the world! But who can question the influence of art? Who can deny that a painting can change the way we look at the world - or that artists have been influenced by world changes? An evolving world captured in paintings, and paintings that alter our view of the world: past and present, cause and effect.

The authors go on to say that, certain "works of art are paintings which have changed the world either by making history visible or creating history themselves." The first criteria is a bit vague, but I can agree with the second. The problem comes with the discussions of the works themselves. The authors don't really tell us how these works "changed the world." To my mind, many of their choices just didn't, and those that did were not sufficiently explained.

So, as a public service, I have decided to pick a few of the paintings they chose, and see if I can't explain why I think they made the right choice, even if they couldn't explain it themselves.

We'll begin where one should always begin this type of survey: with the caves at Lascaux.

Discovered in 1940 purely by chance, they were thought to be a hoax at first. No one thought primitive man could have produced such wonderful, realistic paintings of animals. The authors of the book say:

Unique in their vitality and remarkable in the skill with which they were executed, these pictures dramatically changed our view of art history. Until well into the nineteenth century, it was thought that art had developed gradually and in stages over time, similar to the way a child's art develops - from awkward beginnings to more polished forms.

This is certainly true, but it is only one way in which the caves at Lascaux have changed our perceptions. No one would ever have thought that 15000 years ago, our ancestors were creating any type of art. There is just so little in existance - a carved bone here, a figurine there - but nothing to tell us that there were incredibly talented artists.

One thing the authors here neglect to discuss is the artists themselves - what does it tell us about them? Scholars believe these were sacred caves - "cavemen" didn't actually live in caves if they could help it - and that the decorations may have had some magical power. This is an educated guess - for all we know, this could have just as easily been a dance hall or brothel as a sacred space. But we can tell that our ancestors were not the primitive, club-wielding creatures we assumed them to be.

And to top it all off, these paintings are stunning works of art.

Next time: the Byzantine Mosaics in San Vitale, Ravenna

Illustrated Ideas

I just discovered a blog that seems to be the male counterpart to Out of Lascaux - only he's an objectivist, and he has more pretty pictures. Check out Illustrated Ideas. (via Blogshares)

Highlights: 11/15/02

The idea of examining Sickert's psyche (last post, below) through his paintings reminds me of something I read years ago in an early art history course. John Berger's Ways of Seeing is a book used in good Art Intro courses. On page 27 he shows a Van Gogh landscape (I will not link to it directly because it did weird things to my browser). The text says:

This is a landscape of a cornfield with birds flying out of it. Look at it a moment, then turn the page.

When you turn the page, you see the same image, but written underneath it says:

This is the last picture that Van Gogh painted before he killed himself.. It is hard to define exactly how the words have changed the image but undoubtedly they have.

Indeed they have. The picture suddenly takes on ominous overtones that were not there before. I think you already see where I'm going with this. If we look at Sickert's work with innocent eyes, do we see the same thing as when we look with knowing eyes? I'll never know, because I was not really acquainted with his work before reading Cornwell's book. When I look at a Sickert, I can only see a painting that might be the work of a deranged psycopath, and I will always be looking for those little hints. So will Ms.Cornwell.

BTW, I highly recommend Ways of Seeing - if it's still in print - for anyone teaching a basic intro to art course, or someone who is just interested in learning a bit more. It is rather outdated in some of its imagery (the 70's) but the ideas expressed will always be valid.