Showing posts with label commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label commentary. Show all posts

Monday, May 18, 2009

Art Follows Technology

The absolute value of picture making is that it is always cultural and always of its time. Great art, or at least best efforts, provide valuable insight into the intellectual capacity of people far distant from us. Pretty much all painting was representational prior to the 1940's, which makes for a convenient yardstick to judge the relative merits of various periods and individuals against the whole.

The learning curve to becoming a realist painter is as it always has been (and believe me it can take years). In a sense too the materials have remained much the same, paint, canvas/board, pencil and paper. With that, it's of interest that art's great dramas, the renaissance, impressionism, et al. are often tied to innovative changes to these basic materials.

In Europe until the end of the 14th. century fresco (colored plaster paint) and tempera (pigment in egg yolk and water) were the standard. Both needed an inflexible surface to remain viable, the former walls and the latter usually wooden boards.

Generally speaking Jan Van Eyck is credited with inventing oil painting around 1410. The wisdom then was that these works were inferior in every way to tempera painting, but within a generation or so the vastly superior qualities of oils became widely appreciated. This opened the door to Leonardo Da Vinci and the Italian Renaissance that followed.

The process of painting, regardless of the medium, was laborious. Pigments that came from all corners of the known world needed to be sourced and a supply maintained. Every day paint had to be ground fresh. Studio assistants, often apprentices, were vital to the tasks of picture making. And so it was until the 19th. century, paintings took time, unwieldy equipment and manpower to produce, artists were thus tied to their studios. Paintings themselves however, regardless of size suddenly became portable thanks to the flexible nature of oil paint and the advent of canvas.

Modern paint generally consists of the pigment (color), binding agent (oil, etc.) and a suspending agent to maintain a consistent texture and prevent the pigment and binder from separating. Ready made paints first became available during the early 19th. century with the introduction of pig bladder containers, and in complement industrial paint manufacturing began then also.

In 1841 John G. Rand invented the revolutionary zinc tube, followed by the discovery, in the 1850's, of suspending agents that would keep the paint a consistent texture almost indefinitely. With portable, resealable colors artists were suddenly free to travel along with the tools of their trade. This set the stage for the next upheaval, Impressionism.

It didn't take long for these innovations to manifest themselves. Within a decade the Impressionist painters had evolved a "radical" new look to their work. This early modern art is at least as much opportunism as genius and probably inevitable from the moment tube paints hit store shelves. The idea that photography alone is responsible for the demise of classical painting is nonsense. The post Impressionist possibility that pictures no longer needed to be literal opened the door to an examination of the elements that compose a classical painting, color: Fauvism, and the line: Cubism. Many of the movements that follow (expressionism, abstraction, etc.) are lesser offshoots of the initial deconstruction of realism.

Friday, April 17, 2009

Eating Our Young

Except for those under the tutelage of a "master" or in a historically fertile environment (Paris 1900's, New York 1940-50, etc.), visual artists on average tend not to find a mature "voice" until they hit their mid-thirties.

Artistic maturity is in essence having a solid base of work experience, a toolbox of seamless solutions to the craft of creating a work of art. In my opinion and this is the point, it's because visual art is the least intuitive, most contrived of the creative disciplines.

The practice of galleries and speculators in looking for the next "art star" genius straight out of art school consistently disappoints because schools don't teach how to make amazing, relevant artworks. They merely expose students to possibilities and to each other, the real work begins later. The chances of acquiring a really terrific Rock band at an art school are much greater.

In my final year I remember the owner of a prestigious local venue telling another soon-to-be graduate exactly what to paint to show in his gallery. She looked ready to burst into tears, it was also the last I saw or heard from her. Although common, fishing in this manner hit new heights with English art collecting impresario Charles Saatchi, whose gift it is to elevate anonymous neophytes to national treasures with a wave of his check book. He is soon set to host a reality TV show on "picking the winners". Early on Saatchi is credited with discovering the likes of Damien Hirst, Tracy Emin, et al. which has really given his street cred traction.

Bad practices only contribute to the cynicism and disinterest the public in general feel toward visual art. The mind blowing potential often becomes a mind numbing experience.