Art Appreciation/Education "class" #4: Expressionism

6/16/05 | republicanprofessor

[Republicanprofessor]

Sam,

I'll just have to keep working on your appreciation of abstraction. You've made the following comment about represenational art and abstraction before, and you are absolutely right.

I mean to say that even with great representational art, it must be the abstract qualities which contribute most to that greatness

Piero della Francesca's Flagellation and Resurrection from the mid-to-late 15th century.

These works are about as abstract as "representational" artworks become. Notice the incredible geometric composition: all rectangles, triangles, circles. He also balances colors in a very abstract way. The Resurrection here is a bit on the purple side, but otherwise notice how colors are repeated and placed next to each other many, many times. I still remember an art history lecture, on site in Italy, from 1976 that noted all these qualities. I was amazed. (He was a great professor.)

Hopper is also awesome. I'm so thrilled with each name you mention of artists you love. There are so many out there.

[Republicanprofessor]

These paintings have no structure. They are just seemingly random splashes of paint on canvas.

What I do with some students who think like this is to suggest that they create an abstract painting (if it's so simple). Usually they find that the layering of color, composition and freedom of line is not so easy as it looks. (If you like what you do, take a picture and post if for me!)

I have to take issue with another statement of yours(especially since I'm getting involved with the classical music ping list too).

While music is not necessarily representational (Although the best music is) it does have harmony and structure and flow. Else it is not music.

Have you listened to Schoenberg? It does not have harmony nor flow. The woman's voice doesn't even really sing, it kind of slides (it's called sprechtstimme....making up fancy words to justify art?).

Listen to a clip here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000005J07/qid=1119014520/sr=8-3/ref=pd_csp_3/104-9133375-0606347?v=glance&s=music&n=507846.

But have your ear plugs ready. Maybe you'll appreciate the paintings better after listening to what the music is doing at the same time. I know all the intellectual rationalization for Schoenberg; I still don't enjoy it. It doesn't pass the "play me at the next party" test. (And even the music professors I know don't race to play Schoenberg at any opportunity.)

But I'd take a Kandinsky to hang in my house any day. I'd take and treasure any of the works I post!! May I win that lottery some day...

[John O]

What I do with some students who think like this is to suggest that they create an abstract painting (if it's so simple). Usually they find that the layering of color, composition and freedom of line is not so easy as it looks.

Of course it as as easy as it looks. I've got some used paint trays that look remarkably like some of these types of paintings. Take some paint. Apply to canvas in random fashion. Sell for big bucks to people who've been snookered. Since it doesn't have to look like anything it doesn't matter how good your technique or talent is (after all, how would anyone know that you didn't want it to look exactly like that?)

(If you like what you do, take a picture and post if for me!)

I wish I had the time to try But I can guarantee that I wouldn't like anything that looked like anything on this thread so far. (I think I'd really enjoy painting/drawing although I have no talent in that direction at all. I can 'see' what I want but have never been able to translate that on to paper or other media. I send in those "learn to draw bambi' tests and they write me back telling me not to quit my day job. See, even the scam schools don't want me.) I have to take issue with another statement of yours(especially since I'm getting involved with the classical music ping list too).

me->While music is not necessarily representational (Although the best music is) it does have harmony and structure and flow. Else it is not music.

Have you listened to Schoenberg? It does not have harmony nor flow. The woman's voice doesn't even really sing, it kind of slides (it's called sprechtstimme....making up fancy words to justify art?).

I listened to "Columbine". My wife is laying in the hospital right now recovering from hip replacement surgery. There's a senile lady down the hall who sounds just like that.

Schoenberg is not music. It does however fit with the expressionistic type paintings as he had to be tripping out when he put the sounds together. (of course IMHO anyone who actually paid for that tripe would be accused of being on drugs also)

I stand by my statement. Music has structure and harmony and flow. Shoenberg has none. Therefore it's not music. Would fingernails on a chalkboard be music? Would the moanings and groanings of a senile old lady in pain be music? Sometimes a chain of ugly sounds is just a chain of ugly sounds. (Other times its rap)

[Sloth]

What I do with some students who think like this is to suggest that they create an abstract painting (if it's so simple). Usually they find that the layering of color, composition and freedom of line is not so easy as it looks. (If you like what you do, take a picture and post if for me!)

Hmmm. I might take you up on that, since I pretty much concur with John O's comments. But for the moment, how about comparing a non-abstract work with a Kandinsky you posted?

Note that my rose pic is done with colored pencil and pen & ink, not paint, which would require more skill to do effectively. And I will freely acknowledge that the subject matter is both trite and pedestrian. Great art, it ain't.

However, I would argue that it is *better* art than the Kandinsky. And not just better, but objectively, measurably better. Cliche' that it is, at least my picture actually bears some resemblance to physical reality. And as such, my artistic skill can be judged by seeing how accurately I can represent the subject; a critical eye can point out the flaws, e.g., there should be darker shadows under the petals to show realistic lighting. The Kandinsky, on the other hand, makes no serious attempt to look like anything, so it eludes the application of such standards. Paint can be smeared on a canvas and called great art, because it is impossible to identify any flaws -- since there's nothing really there in the first place. It is valued because there are no standards for it to meet.

I am not ashamed to show people my picture. But if I somehow produced the other one, I'd burn it before anybody got a glimpse.

[Republicanprofessor]

Sometimes a chain of ugly sounds is just a chain of ugly sounds.

You would love the "music" of John Cage. He has one piece I can actually play. It's called 4' 33". The pianist, with music, sits at the piano and plays NOTHING for 4 minutes and 33 seconds. It's the ambient sound of the audience that's the "music:" the coughs, the "what's going on?" etc.

I only play a section of that in class. It's fun. Is it profound? I doubt it. It derives from Duchamp's Fountain, the use of ready-made objects. How do you like it?

This is the beginning of the stress upon new ideas, rather than traditional form and content. I knew you'd love it. :)

[Republicanprofessor]

Reply to post 24. Too much to quote here.

Your rose is fine and reproduces well online. Yes, it is a bit "trite and pedestrian." And that's exactly what the more adventurous artists react against.

Now, Kandinsky is at a concert in this work. Can you see a musical instrument in this? I can. (Hint: it's big and black.) On the left are impressions of people: the audience, the other musicians, it doesn't matter. What is neat is how the rounded arcs could represent their heads, their chairs or even the melodic line (if you can say that about Schoenberg's music....see the clip on my answer to John O.) I like abstract art because the content can work on those different levels.

And Kandinsky is searching for new kinds of expression: new, brighter uses of color, freer line with out outlines, flat space. Some of the colors could be said to clash; so do the sounds in Schoenberg's music.

I love teaching this in an interdisciplinary class, where the hands-on connection with students is a bit better than on the internet.

BTW, I didn't "get" this stuff right away. It took some reading, looking and listening. Now I love it. Different art for different folks, eh?

[John O]

And I will freely acknowledge that the subject matter is both trite and pedestrian. Great art, it ain't.

I disagree so very strongly with the bolded portion of your statement. Your rose is the best looking thing on this entire thread. Great art takes you past the image to experience more of life. I can almost smell your rose. That is great art. Of course the hoity-toity set will downplay it because it actually looks like a rose.

[John O]

Cage's 4'33" belongs in Duchamp's Fountain. Of course the fountain needs to be hooked up and flushed.

These are the people who give art a bad name. Scrap metal or construction waste thrown together is not art. It is scrap metal and nothing more. Music with no notes, or anything remotly like Schoenberg is not music. It's just noise. And yet these are the things that NEA funds get spent on while good artists can't get a sponsoirship at all. It infuriates me.

Art has been so abused that anyone who identifies themselves as an "artist" immediately gets classed as pretentious leftist scum until they prove otherwise.

[Sloth]

Ah! I wouldn't have recognized the piano if you had not mentioned it. I did get the people along the left side (the curves equalling heads, as I saw it), and even a sense of perspective.

BTW, when you originally posted it, I thought this was the one you were unsure of the title, and said 'train', so I thought maybe I was looking down a train platform. But clearly, the Kool-Aid Man (below) can be spotted enjoying the performance in the upper left portion of the scene.

Yes, it is a bit "trite and pedestrian." And that's exactly what the more adventurous artists react against.

I'm sure that many modern artists would be willing to forgive my realistic/representational approach, if I showed Christ being sodomized with a chainsaw, or something.

Now, to show I'm not a complete reactionary, I'll give an example of someone modern who often uses what looks like formless blobs of paint, but can actually produce worthwhile art with them: Chuck Close. His work takes real effort & talent, because it matters what the final product looks like when seen from a distance. (Sort of pointilism on a macro scale, I guess?)

[Sam Cree]

"they write me back telling me not to quit my day job"

I know you are probably just kidding, but it is still worth noting that Andrew Loomis (who was something of a genius at illustration during the first half and middle of the 20th century) was told by the professors at his art school that he should give it up and go home.

[Sam Cree]

I have to say that I don't like Chuck Close too much. I find imitation of photography unworthy of a painter, even if embellished with clever patterns or enlarged out of all proportion.

OTOH, I like your rose quite well.

[Sam Cree]

I like the Kandinsky a little better now that you have pointed out that it is representational after all ;-)

[Republicanprofessor]

Chuck Close is great. He plays with that line between representation and abstraction that I think is the most fascinating. His Fanny below is huge and made with thumbprints. It's great to see in person (vs. this puny and poorly colored image). It's hard to believe that each mark is a thumb or fingerprint. Yes, it is indeed a new kind of pointilism.

[John O]

now that is a beautiful painting. Of course the wife wouldn't let me hang it over the sofa (social mores and all).

[etabeta]

please add me to your ping list. Terrific threads. Thanks.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The woman's voice doesn't even really sing, it kind of slides (it's called sprechtstimme....making up fancy words to justify art?).

Rex Harrison war Sprechstimme, als Sphrechstimme nicht kühl war.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Looks like a piano sounds.

It's not the lack of understanding but the lack of understanding the lack of understanding.

Beethoven always sounds to me like the upsetting of a bag of nails, with here and there an also dropped hammer. -- John Ruskin

[Republicanprofessor]

I don't speak German, but I can guess at what you mean with Rex Harrison.

In response to your next post, #37, I remember a concert I went to in NH. They played Beethoven's 5th, I think, during an incredible thunderstorm. They had to put buckets to catch the drips. Somehow the noise of the storm seem to echo the power of Beethoven more than distract from it. I guess that's the thing about taste. I obviously do not agree with Ruskin.