Art Appreciation/Education "class" #5: Cubism

6/20/05 | republicanprofessor

[politicket]

LOL!!! Now THAT is funny!

[infidel29]

As an artist, I have absolutely ZERO apperciation for Cubism. It is part of my disillusionment with the art field in general.

[Sam Cree]

Thanks much for this lesson, Professor.

Very interesting that this (unknown to me) work appears in a discourse on cubism. I would have thought cubism to have been something of a rebellion against academic work, but this portrait is apparently instead a direct descendant of it.

As you probably know, the academic method of drawing (including painting) relies on simplifying the body and head into basic and uncomplicated geometric forms, rendered with straight lines, catching all the correct angles. Once this is done, the subltleties are searched out and the figure is softened where appropriate. In any case, the above portrait is not much more than the very beginning stage of an academic portrait, only with color added. There are other techniques in the work consistent with the academic style. I am a little surprised.

I tend to like the stuff you posted, esp. the 3 musicians. As always, while I consider it to be good art, I have trouble putting it into the "great" category.

[Sam Cree]

I wouldn't mind if you'd place the work of Jean Cocteau into wherever it belongs in all this. As much as I can be critical of abstract art, my wife and I have a print of a Cocteau, of 2 lovers at Cannes, arms entwined, down by the water, hanging over our bed. We both like it, and of course it goes well with the "50's" look that we have followed to some extent in the house. Which was built in the 50's.

I can't find the image on the web, or I'd post it. Anyhow, Cocteau's drawings remind me more of Matisse than anyone you've posted so far.

[Sam Cree]

"I think the best artists (and whether John O wants to put them over his sofa or not, these include, for me, Matisse, Kandinsky, Picasso and many, many more) have something to "say" in their works, which I call content."

I know that all great art has had something to say, not only about its subject matter, but about the art that preceded it. Content can be the simple beauty of a landscape or a young lady. But whatever the subject, it is delivered with the unique vision of the particular artist.

My daughter, as I previously related, just graduated from college with her BFA, - one of her pet peeves was the "artist's statements" that were required for everything she produced. Of course, the profs expected those statements to be dripping with political correctness (and feminism, since she is a female). She, OTOH, would rather have just let her work stand on its own merit.

I personally am inclined to like art that tells a story - I guess it's one reason why I appreciate illustrators, and why, in my own work, I have sometimes found myself working on subject matter that is rather narrative.

[Sam Cree]

I have test to tell whether art is great, sort of like your sofa test.

In 1000 years, when archaeologists dig it up, will they know it was great art?

[Sam Cree]

test = a test

[John O]

I think the best artists (and whether John O wants to put them over his sofa or not, these include, for me, Matisse, Kandinsky, Picasso and many, many more) have something to "say" in their works, which I call content.

You can have all the content in the world but if you don't effectively communicate it that content may as well not be there. Art needs to be visually appealing before any content can be ascertained. (Who's going to look for any possible meaning in something as ugly as a Picasso?).

For example, you say that the portrait of Ambroise Vollard shows that he (Ambroise) is intelligent. I don't even see prove that he's in the picture. How can something that doesn't even look like anything have meaning? I'll never be able to see value in the more modern art styles (cubism etc) as they aren't pretty enough to bother looking at and if I can force myself to look at them they have no meaning. They are content nil. (to my eyes at least)

Further, if the "content" has to be explained to the casual passer-by then that content is only a figment of the artist's (delusional) imagination. Somewhat like a book written totally in punctuation marks. It has no meaning without having the author there to explain it. What good is that?

At least the chimp painting is a good conversation piece. Chimps aren't expected to be good painters so any painting by a chimp looks good

[John O]

the real measure of great art is "would you buy it if you could afford it?"

I live a short ways from a town in south central indiana that has lots of artists and thus lots of galleries. I've bought (probably) twenty or thirty paintings. A couple are phenomonally beautiful. (stare at them and get lost for a few hours type beauty) others are merely pretty. But all were worth the money. That is great art

[Republicanprofessor]

It is wonderful that you buy original works from local artists, and not just prints of reproductions by famous artists (although the latter are fine too).

Now your "sofa" comments have more credibility. But how many sofas do you have??

[Sam Cree]

I guess my personal standards for great art are that it must show greatness in some or all of these areas: beauty, skill, the ability to communicate or evoke an idea, thought or emotion, the ability to touch one's heart at some fundamental level. I think I'd say that for me, great art has to have any 3 of those qualities.

However, I think time is the real judge. 'Course, on the contemporary stuff, I'll just have to settle for using my own standards.

I'm impressed that you own so many paintings, very cool.

[Samwise]

I'm enjoying the art lessons. Thanks for posting them.

[Republicanprofessor]

I think time is the real judge.

Sam, you are right in this. I do think this early modern work will pass the test of time. It has already nearly passed the century mark.

As for minimalism and postmodernism, we'll have to wait at least another half-century for that. But I don't think many of those works will pass the test of time.

It took artists a century to understand Giotto's works and to develop from there. So I think the same may be true for Cubism and that the early 20th century may have been the primitivism of the new style.

Giotto Flight into Egypt Arena Chapel, Padua 1305

Masaccio Baptism Brancacci Chapel Florence 1420

By the way, these are more obscure images from these chapels. Masaccio's Tribute Money is more famous from the latter. There is nothing better than seeing these in person.

[John O]

Now your "sofa" comments have more credibility. But how many sofas do you have??

Three. plus a couple chair groupings and a hallway wall or two. (not to mention above the beds etc) And we try to rotate artwork from time to time. Although my wife still won't let me hang my black velvet mountain landscape which was the first painting I bought. Still love it but it lives in the garage for now. :^(

[John O]

I guess my personal standards for great art are that it must show greatness in some or all of these areas: beauty, skill, the ability to communicate or evoke an idea, thought or emotion, the ability to touch one's heart at some fundamental level. I think I'd say that for me, great art has to have any 3 of those qualities.

I'd agree with this but the driving one is beauty. If it's not good to look at why buy it.

I disagree on the time test though. 100 years from now I won't care if it's great art or not. It will no longer be relevant to me. (Nor will my opinion be relevant). I can look at paintings done almost 100 years ago that the art community says are brilliant and they still look like trash to me. Time will not fix ugly art but beauty is forever. If it looks good it will always look good.

[Sam Cree]

"I do think this early modern work will pass the test of time."

I agree.

RE, my hypothetical scenario of it being dug up by future archaeaologists, I think they would be totally fascinated by it and put it in museums.

This is a little ironic, since my personal taste is for the representational, but if I apply John's test of art over the sofa to my own home, there isn't much question that the early modern stuff is what goes best (house was built in the 50's in a deliberate example of the architecture of the time, longitudinal heavy beams, lots of glass, etc).

Also, it is interesting to note that, roughly a century later, higher quality academic work is finally getting some attention. Without arguing over which was superior, the outright disrespect and disdain which the modern art world has accorded even the best academics has always seemed artificial to me.

[Sam Cree]

Yes, one thing about using beauty as the primary test for great art, if beauty is there, then all other criteria are generally there too.

The time test can't be a test for personal taste in greatness of art, as is the sofa test. 'Course the problems involved in trying to figure out who gets to decide greatness is why time will tell.

[mabelkitty]

I was unfamiliar with Picasso's earlier work. I really liked all three works from 1912. It shows off his incredible eye and his technical skill. I'm pleasantly surprised.

[mabelkitty]

That's a sad blue.