On Speaking Frankly about Art April 12, 2008
Posted by uberart in Art Criticism.Tags: baroque, Guido Reni, painting, technique
trackback
One of the most interesting blogs that I have recently discovered–not that I always agree with the author–is HT over on blogspot (which is why I have placed it in my list of links). His manner is forthright and unconcerned with maintaining academic “spot-on” objectivity. Please do not misunderstand me; objectivity plays a vital role in contexts of formal education. But there are other contexts where a more subjective commentary–such as those on HT (and eventually as a Shop Talk category here in Uberart)–may also play an educational role. Interestingly, his essays are opinionated and include early art and culture, the Renaissance and Baroque, and often current issues–although some of the latter may stray a bit from our topic. I’ll cite a comment he made not quite a year ago, that places a finger on precisely what I would like to develop as a focus here, in Uberart.
“Talking about likes and dislikes in painting is unacademic; it is unprofessional; it is no longer done by serious people. Which is a pity, of course, because that misses the whole point of painting, really, does it not, since the reason why painting is important – the only reason, at bottom why we bother with it – is that we like it. Not everyone the same thing, thank goodness, some this, some that; which is what makes for interesting conversations; and sometimes irritating ones. But, each for his or her own reasons, we spend time with them because we like them.” — HT
The trouble with speaking about art is that often we are kept from expressing what we most might wish to say–that a concept is amazing, but the brushwork is lousy, or vice-versa… and WHY we might believe so. It is my personal opinion that mixing technical with conceptual analysis is what can elevate us to new levels of understanding (education) and ultimately, as artists, to new levels of competency (artistry). For tonight, I will end on a question to you concerning a particular painting: Guido Reni’s Flagellation. I’m curious if anyone has seen this in person. I have spent many hours with it in Bologna, Italy (the Pinacoteca) and find it a very strange unfinished work. The dark tones around the bodies in the mid-section seem to be part of a build-up of the value composition, but they are quite green in real life, overpainted above the first sketch-in of paint, and transparent. The real question is regarding this: Notice how Reni has overpainted this green color over part of the mid-section of the figure on the left. Then notice that he later applied a second layer of coloring on the remaining section of that figure…without bothering to grade out the area made obscure with the green.
My question is somewhat rhetorical, but not entirely. I want to know more, but my aim here is to get some commentary going on technique. I personally believe that Reni is one of the greatest “composers” after Raphael, and believe that we can gain from talking about his work. Any comments?
Jerry, I agree with you completely about the need for opinion mixed in with objective criticism. I think it’s especially critical to take apart the different elements of an artist’s work and hold them apart from each other when we wish to discuss aspects of the art instead of the work as a whole. One can have great respect for PIcasso’s concepts and compositions while lamenting that his painting surfaces look like cottage cheese. Vice versa for someone like Bougereau. Lovely execution, modeling and surface qualities in service of some of the most boring subject matter in the art world.
So taking things apart and appreciating each facet on it’s own can lead us to synthesize new art from pieces and concepts lifted from artist’s efforts. (Trilling’s ‘great artists steal.’)
As for Flagellation, I have never seen it in person, but from the photo it looks like the greenish is an area that has bled through the surface paint rather than applied over it. Note that the dark mass is continuous in a rough squarish shape to the left of the Christ figure, and seems to be consistently dark. Perhaps this is simply a case of poor craftsmanship or poor conservation efforts some time later? I’d be curious to see conservationist reports on the state of that piece…
Yes, Kurt.. Bougereau’s subject matter is…”sweet”. When I first saw images of it, I admit that I was literally Wowed! and decided to look into his techniques. It didn’t take long, however, to tire of his depictions of glossed-over angelic beings. I also began to notice that certain aspects of his landscape backdrops seem just that.. backdrops. On Picasso, I will limit myself. I love some of his works.. Guernica and his blue period.. because they speak to me. But I believe that the politics of the time needed someone to glom onto for internationalizing certain art perspectives. The same with Warhol, who was used for popularizing many ideas that have now become mainstream in “contemporary” art school programs: technique becomes cursory, message becomes limited to what Orwell referred to as “Newspeak”. Sorry if this sounds reductive, but I’m speaking from big-picture politics (no intent is meant here to belittle the actual work of Warhol or the man himself). My point is that he was convenient.
I still appreciate that Bougereau was able to click something on inside of me years ago and to inspire my technical development and that Picasso reminded people (as other artists have done in earlier times) that beauty and content in painting/drawing isn’t hell-bent to become visual “simulacra” (photograph).
On the Reni piece, I hadn’t considered that the green might simply be leaching through or that the the upper layer could have become that much more transparent. I think that you have a point. What I hadn’t considered is that (duh!) Reni likely wanted to visually flesh-out the Christ (main) figure before he began to add in the other subordinate ones, surrounding it in a dark tone. That fits with what we see, but he normally worked out the compositions Prior to beginning on canvas (his drawings are amazing). It makes sense in some ways though. I can’t believe how long I’ve looked at the composition and not considered that he was composing “on the canvas”.. thanks Kurt!