Posted on 05/08/2006 6:05:20 AM PDT by Republicanprofessor
Frank Stella never learned how to draw. And yet his later works have a dynamic space to them that is truly impossible to feel unless you are below them. He was inspired by Caravaggio and delivered a prestigious lecture series at Harvard based on those ideas of space.
An interesting shot of Stella himself; one gets some of the dynamism of the space, but it would truly be more impressive in person. And Caravaggio's Conversion of St. Paul, early 17th century.
I do however think that some of the details of his pieces, i.e. the cross hatching, could be better with a better background in drawing.
"sometimes artists have a vision that may not depend on drawing skills"
You started a very interesting thread:)
Absolutely, strong drawing skills aren't essential for great art. Van Gogh, for example. But the Europeans who gave rise to Abstractionism knew how to handle paint. The glazes Rothko used to such great effect derive from traditional oil painting technique. A solid understanding of proportion, perspective, line, color theory, composition, etc., didn't make any of the modern art masters worse painters.
But the modern art instruction which has produced so many of our contemporary artists scorned many of those principles as "inhibiting". That lack of skill may work to charming effect for outsider and primitive art, but it has produced a crop of modern artists who know how to talk the talk and not walk the walk.
(Thanks for the Stella/Caravaggio comparison. Something to save for future reference.)
perfect
RP, if Stella did not know how to draw, then by definition much of the placement of the elements of his painting is on the support by accident. In that sense, that what he did was beyond his control, it cannot even be art. IMO.
I don't know, it seems to me that if people who can't even draw are considered "presitigious" by the modern art world, while those who can are scorned, this says more about the new "academy" than anything else.
a big fat exclamation point?
Stella measured and composed his early works. He did know what he was doing. Because he may not have been trained drawing nudes does not mean that he did not create some fine pieces.
Pollock said that new ideas take new means.
But I'm not sure if this is a good long-term development (as you point out quite frequently). And right now I don't have time to explain this piece. It is called Die Fahne Hoch (Black on High).
I might agree with that, and I might even agree that Rothko is an artist, but I'm having a lot of trouble being convinced that his work is "great." He not only needed to create a new language, but new standards by which to judge, if I understand this right. Well, he didn't create the new language, I think we're still using English. He did create new standards maybe, the problem is whether or not the standards themselves are of value. I'm not convinced yet.
Blazing a new trail can lead to greatness, but rarely does, usually the explorer just gets lost without finding anything of value. Newness is not of value by itself, more likely the opposite. Great art is more likely to be about timelessness than newness, as far as I can see. This is not to say that modern art is not timeless...I just don't see that in the Rothkos.
"I'm also interested if you think that the artist is always in control of what he is communicating?"
I guess that I agree that he is never completely in control, but if he is not in control to a large degree, I don't see how one justifies referring to the results as "art," unless we are to deprive the word "art" of its usual meaning of "skill." Though perhaps we have already done that, skill does seem to be seen as a negative quality by much of the modern art scene. Newness, OTOH, is valued whether or not there is skill, or even anything of artistic value, present in the work.
I rather like that one! It looks kind of Celtic. I'll have to think a little about what you said, as always. I am reassured by what you said, though, thanks.
It would be as vanishingly rare as Einstein's revolution of physics (which, nevertheless, he could express to other physicists through the "media" of mathematics) for some artist to experience something so radically different that no other human had experienced it. Neither depression nor rage are one of those epiphanies, though each new artist seems to think they are. Sort of like each generation thinks they discovered rebellion and sex. For an artist to say the language he uses cannot convey his meaning, therefore he needs a new language, is hubris, similar to a teen declaring that no one can understand what she is going through. It more indicates the inarticulateness of the artist than the limitations of the media.
Perhaps Rothko with his seemingly simple colors and geometry might need the aid of the written word to help express his experience if the audience doesn't yet know how to interpret the art -- if the new language is not accessible or easily understood.
If Rothko can't express his message without the written component, then the pieces shouldn't stand on their own in a museum; they are incomplete. If his art depends on mixed media of paint and exposition, then present it as mixed media.
I'm also interested if you think that the artist is always in control of what he is communicating?
No, but a good artist is. One that is put forth as a master artist damn well should be. Shakespeare knew what he was doing with every word he wrote; there is no unconscious feminist and/or marxist subtext, regardless of what modern critical thinking postulates. Rodin did not accidentally put messages from his id into his sculpture. Every dab of paint in a Monet was deliberately placed.
This does not mean that each viewer does not bring his own interpretation to the viewing. Everyone is going to filter their perceptions though their own experiences, but it is the commonality of human experience that makes the dialog possible. Dialog is a two way thing, though; the artist and the viewer have to bring something.
What I believe Rothko brought was the tools and structure of the communication (i.e. color, shapes, blending subtle transitions, manipulation of texture and depth effects, etc.), but no content. It is as if Shakespeare had written a list in iambic pentameter containing all the words of a sonnet, but not framed any sentences, and then expected the audience to assemble their own meaning from the word jumble.
I reject that. What you propose is that humans have no innate creativity, but are merely tools of some source from without. If that is true, then we are some combination of clever animal and useful meat puppet.
Just as an athlete can hone a set of movements until it becomes so easy to do it seems unconscious, an artist can hone creative thought. But it is not truly unconscious; it is triggered by an act of will. A well trained athlete can drop into "the zone" much more easily than a weekend warrior. A well trained artist can "commune with his muse" in a similar way. "I will now block a slapshot" becomes a flicker of perception followed by ingrained action. "I need to balance my composition, so I will increase my negative space here" becomes "Red here and here".
At least in terms of post-modern abstract art ... ;-)
I'm still trying to figure this one - "fraught" with what? This guy needs an editor.
"Eventually, he decided instead to donate the paintings to Tate.
This transaction was also to prove fraught, for Rothko, despite, or, as is more likely, because of the great critical and commercial success that had come to him in the 1950s, tended to detect slights and veiled insults at every turn."
I don't know if you are interested or not, but I just posted a new "lecture" on Romanticism that has some references to Rothko.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1630734/posts?page=3
It occured to me that Rothko may be the last derivation from the nineteenth century Romantics like Friedrich and Turner. So check it out if you wish.
Because I believe creativity is inherent within us, a necessary component of free will. To say that creativity is an outside source operating through us as a tool is counter to this concept. To say it derives from a totally unconscious internal source reduces creativity to animal instinct, when creativity is actually one of the distinguishers of humanity.
A craftsman can reproduce an artifact without understanding the design. Creation takes understanding the idea. Artistry requires both. Mastery requires mastery in each aspect. Yes, the balancing aspect falls into the craftsmanship area, but by honing those skills to an almost automatic level, the artist is left free to devote more of his immediate attention to the creativity.
My 12 year old has a better grasp of color than this Rothko person.
L
Rothko's doesn't. It does require that you stand in front of it.
I guess you don't believe that the sublimation of the animal instincts, the sex drive, for example, can result in creativity. Artists, not only of the Nietzschean ilk, believe this to be true -- as well, boxers and athletes also attest to how this drive can be channeled toward different ends.
What do you think of the surrealists who see and draw upon the connection between the unconscious and their art? The language of dreams totally pervades their art. As well, if creativity is a necessary component of free will, why can't we turn it on at will, like a light switch. Why do artists have writers block for years? Artists may try to get into "the zone" but it is not always a question of will. The tricks that enable don't always work on demand. Many times it's a question of waiting and/or forgetting and then something may come. But not always.
If I can anticipate your reply, in part, you believe that the good ones can easily enter the zone. But there were many good writers and artists who felt stymied for years, felt frustrated that they had nothing important to say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.