Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Evidence for Theory of Art History?

Rate this topic


ctrl y

Recommended Posts

Although I adore Kandinsky, I have to disagree with this. A lot of his 'theory'' of colour (detailed in "Concerning The Spiritual In Art') is little more than claims about how colours affected him personally. He did seem to think that what he described would be shared by all people who were sufficiently developed emotionally to 'understand' art, but he never really gave any objective basis for it and it isnt presented in the manner of a scientific/psychological theory. When someone asserts that orange is a more spiritual colour than green, theres not really much you can say in response.

But Kandinsky did support many of his views on color by explaining the illusion of their volume and physical movement -- approach, recession, expansion and contraction imply aggression, introversion, etc. Neutrality implies a sort of lifelessness; black can imply an umatched silence and stillness, etc.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Courbet's Stone Breakers accurately depicts a three-dimensional space in the context of hilly terrain.

Your opinion about the image's horizon line and perspective is meaningless to me until you demonstrate where the horizon line is by plotting it out in 3-point perspective based on the figures, objects, lighting and shadows. Care to give it a try?

I agree that the painting is somewhat "flat," especially compared to paintings which contain extreme chiaroscuro lighting schemes and overt perpective indicators like a checkered floor, but it's no more "flat" than certain paintings which preceded the dissemination of Kant's ideas, like some of the paintings of Hals, Velazquez, Chardin, and even Gainsborough.

The lighting is not straight on, but at about 30 degrees off of being straight on, horizontally, and 30 to 40 degrees off, vertically.

There's nothing unconvincing about the light and shadows. It's not true that "no one perceives light in such a manner." Everyone perceives a light at 30 x 40 degrees in the way that it's depicted in the painting.

Do you have any quotes from Courbet about what he was "trying to say," or are your views about his intentions based on your "reading" of his painting (while misrepresenting its perspective and lighting)? My understanding of Courbet is that he was trying to create genuine depictions of life and nature, without artifice and pretension.

Visual art has had a long history of artists rejecting the styles and ideas of the artists who came immediately before them -- the acceptable, established, popular styles of the day -- and somewhat reverting to older styles and ideas (which the young artists thought had been headed in the right direction before the current established bastards wrecked everything and distorted The True Vision), and combining them with new ideas and styles based on new technologies and techniques, some of which would even be appropriated from the established styles that were being rejected.

Millet and Courbet, and others like Manet, were heavily influenced by the frontal lighting, rough brushwork, and compositional ideas of artists who predated Kant, like some of those I mentioned above -- Hals, Velazquez, etc. They were also heavily influenced by the new technology of photography, which included, to their minds, fascinating new effects which they tried to replicate, in some cases drawing directly from photos. One of photography's effects was an appealing realism which didn't require the forced artifice of chiaroscuro. In other words, photography allowed them to see ways in which to improve on Hals and Velazquez and portray reality without limiting the lighting scheme to a clichéd formula.

So, were Hals' and Velazquez's "flat" paintings also "Kantian," despite being created before Kant?

If by "Kantian" you mean that you've interpreted Courbet to have held ideas that may have been similar to the ideas that you've interpreted to be the essence of Kant's ideas, and that "Kantian" doesn't mean that you've established a link between Courbet's art and Kant's ideas, then I'd agree that Courbet may have been "Kantian."

It's a very convincing depiction of spatial relationships. It doesn't include something like a checkered floor to give the visually uninitiated an obvious sense of perspective, but the figures and objects appear to properly conform to the three-dimensional space, and the image makes use of the atmospheric perspective and non-flat lighting that you praised earlier.

I don't have time at the moment, but at some point in the near future I'll compile and post a list of the many artists who lived before Kant yet painted images with "absurdly high" horizon lines, "flat" lighting, and placed a lot of emphasis on pictorial composition as opposed to overtly romantic narrative.

Sure, but Manet's work (not "Monet's" -- there's an "a" not an "o") leading to modern art is not the same thing as Kant's ideas leading to modern art.

Regardless of the fact that Japanese art was "outside of the Western tradition," it had an influence on Courbet, Millet, and Manet (and many other Western artists), and had nothing to do with Kant. And, as I mentioned above, I hope to find some time to compile a list of artists who used the alleged "Kantian" elements of the Realists prior to Kant.

J

See, Eliot. Tar Baby. Can you imagine if I'd have given him a minute of my time. I'd have had to deal with this parsing of minutea. Johnathan is convinced. He simply wants to debate you.

Sandra Shaw discusses The Stone Breakers in the series I mentioned. No I'm not going to do your work for you.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Courbet's Stone Breakers accurately depicts a three-dimensional space in the context of hilly terrain.

I suggest you check the image again, and compare it to pre-Renaissance art to note the similiarities. Courbet has not accurately depicted three-dimensional space. Rather, the entire ground of the picture appears to "slide" toward the beholder, so that it almost appears silly for figures to be able to stand. The metal pot on the right side will assist you in if need be.

Your opinion about the image's horizon line and perspective is meaningless to me until you demonstrate where the horizon line is by plotting it out in 3-point perspective based on the figures, objects, lighting and shadows. Care to give it a try?

The observation of a high horizon line is not an "opinion." It is a confirmed aspect of the painting. Any art historian will tell you that high horizon lines were employed by the Realists in order to flatten the painting.

I agree that the painting is somewhat "flat," especially compared to paintings which contain extreme chiaroscuro lighting schemes and overt perpective indicators like a checkered floor, but it's no more "flat" than certain paintings which preceded the dissemination of Kant's ideas, like some of the paintings of Hals, Velazquez, Chardin, and even Gainsborough.

I agree that their are paintings from pre-Kantian times which exhibited a certain quality of flatness. You will find a plethora of them produced before the Renaissance. The ones which you find afterward are flat because the painter lacked in technical skill, i.e. he didn't have the capability of painting any better. Moreover, your claim about Valazquez is unfounded. 'Las Meninas' exhibits a horizon line which is (at highest) at the center of the painting. My estimation is about where the top of the doorway is in the background. Either way this painting presents an eloquent comparision. Valezquez has very accurately depicted a three-dimensional space with his use of linear perspective. You may want to check the Wikipedia article on perspective.

There's nothing unconvincing about the light and shadows. It's not true that "no one perceives light in such a manner." Everyone perceives a light at 30 x 40 degrees in the way that it's depicted in the painting.

There isn't much I can say, other than: Look again. Have you ever seen figures in reality be "cut out" as perfectly as these stone breakers are? Ask yourself why they appear that way. Here's a hint: It's because of the lighting and the shadowing it creates.

Do you have any quotes from Courbet about what he was "trying to say," or are your views about his intentions based on your "reading" of his painting (while misrepresenting its perspective and lighting)? My understanding of Courbet is that he was trying to create genuine depictions of life and nature, without artifice and pretension.

Your understanding is wrong. Forget trying to attribute any motive to Courbet (although I am presenting you with the proper one), and start with your premise: Courbet is trying to create genuine depictions of life and nature, without artifice and pretension. Did he actually do this, or did he do the exact opposite?

Millet and Courbet, and others like Manet, were heavily influenced by the frontal lighting, rough brushwork, and compositional ideas of artists who predated Kant, like some of those I mentioned above -- Hals, Velazquez, etc. They were also heavily influenced by the new technology of photography, which included, to their minds, fascinating new effects which they tried to replicate, in some cases drawing directly from photos.

If that is true, I wish they would have seen this photo.

It's a very convincing depiction of spatial relationships.

Once again I don't know what to say, other than refer you to Perugrino's 'The Delivery of the Keys' for comparision.

Sure, but Manet's work (not "Monet's" -- there's an "a" not an "o") leading to modern art is not the same thing as Kant's ideas leading to modern art.

It does if Kant led to Manet (Monet too).

Regardless of the fact that Japanese art was "outside of the Western tradition," it had an influence on Courbet, Millet, and Manet (and many other Western artists), and had nothing to do with Kant.

Similiar to what I said above, Japanese artists belonged to the category of artists who were not capable of reproducing reality.

See, Eliot. Tar Baby. Can you imagine if I'd have given him a minute of my time. I'd have had to deal with this parsing of minutea. Johnathan is convinced. He simply wants to debate you.

Sandra Shaw discusses The Stone Breakers in the series I mentioned. No I'm not going to do your work for you.

I think you may be right, although there is a remote chance that at this time he could just be concrete-bound. But all signs are pointing to the "come on, debate me" attitude.

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No time at present for an extended response, but I want to make a few of quick comments.

I suggest you check the image again, and compare it to pre-Renaissance art to note the similiarities. Courbet has not accurately depicted three-dimensional space. Rather, the entire ground of the picture appears to "slide" toward the beholder

Yeah, and that would confirm my statement that it's an image of hilly terrain.

I wrote:

Your opinion about the image's horizon line and perspective is meaningless to me until you demonstrate where the horizon line is by plotting it out in 3-point perspective based on the figures, objects, lighting and shadows. Care to give it a try?

adrock3215 replied:

The observation of a high horizon line is not an "opinion." It is a confirmed aspect of the painting.

You don't actually know where the horizon line is in the painting, do you? And you don't know how to plot it out in perspective, do you?

Moreover, your claim about Valazquez is unfounded. 'Las Meninas' exhibits a horizon line which is (at highest) at the center of the painting.

I didn't say that all of Velazquez's paintings had the type of "flat" effects that influenced the Realists. And the Realists themselves didn't always paint in styles which resulted in the somewhat flattened effect that we've been discussing.

I wrote:

There's nothing unconvincing about the light and shadows. It's not true that "no one perceives light in such a manner." Everyone perceives a light at 30 x 40 degrees in the way that it's depicted in the painting.

adrock3215 replied:

There isn't much I can say, other than: Look again. Have you ever seen figures in reality be "cut out" as perfectly as these stone breakers are? Ask yourself why they appear that way. Here's a hint: It's because of the lighting and the shadowing it creates.

Try plotting in perspective the figure's shadows that fall on the ground, and I think you'll confirm my observation of the angle of the lighting.

I wrote:

It's a very convincing depiction of spatial relationships.

adrock3215 replied:

Once again I don't know what to say, other than refer you to Perugrino's 'The Delivery of the Keys' for comparision.

I hate to break it to you, but The Delivery of the Keys IS NOT rendered in accurate perspective. Check the grid for yourself if you know how. It gets more and more out of proportion as it recedes from the viewer. To the experienced eye, it's quite awkward.

More later,

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading this topic, I did some Googling out of curiosity. I don't know enough to have an opinion on the roots of various aesthetic theories, but I thought I'd share what I found. These notes are more like a (instant web) literature survey than a personal opinion.

Interestingly, I found that the idea that Kandinsky's aesthetic theories can be traced to Kant is not unique to Rand. This commentator reaches the same conclusion, saying, "There is arguably a clear trajectory from Kant to Kandinsky, Schoenberg, and Joyce." That summary is rather dense, but the broad theme is this: one can trace key ideas from Kant into Romanticism and thence into modern art.

Kant's influence on Romanticism: A lot of commentators trace a link from Kant to Romanticism. Romanticism was a break with classical canons. As a broad movement across various art forms, Romanticists shifted from the notion of strict objectivity of rules (what an Objectivist might view as a form of "intrinsicism"), to a more flexible view that allowed the artist to seek within himself for his understanding of beauty, without trying to fit into a strict canon. The source of inspiration was one's inner self; this was art, not science.

It appears that in painting, this resulted in more fluid brushstrokes, stronger colors, complex compositions and expressive poses. In other arts too, the Romanticists (1800 - 1850) stressed feeling, a dynamic view of nature, and the individual, and produced great work. However, while expressing beauty in a flexible, un-straight-jacketed style, the aesthetic theory of the Romanticists could not provide a good explanation for how this goal is reached. By denigrated rationality and objectivity, they were left with the idea of an artist feeling his way to great art.

The Romanticists produced great work, by breaking with canon, but their theory that one should use a subjective approach was a shaky foundation. They did seek beauty as a universal. They did echo Kant's idea of beauty as a universal (from Critique of Judgement). Their's was not a theory of metaphysical subjectivism, where anything goes and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is more nuanced. While they sought universal beauty, they had to seek within. In practice, this becomes a methodologically subjective approach, while trying to find a metaphysically-universal answer. The route to that universality comes from looking within himself: i.e., by experimenting and seeing what evokes beauty -- as opposed to following some rules prescribed by classical canon.

Kandinsky: In Kandinsky's theory, one sees the echo of the same approach. he seeks a universal ideal of beauty, he seeks it via a specific route that mirrors the theoretical methodology of the Romanticists: i.e., he seeks it by feeling his way to it, and by trying to get at the essence of beauty in color and form, by keeping them detached from the real world.

I found commentators who refer to Kandinsky's early work as reflecting Romanticism. Kandinsky himself seems to echo the notion of universal truth via inward seeking. The term he used was "concrete art", but he did not mean art that copied concretes. Rather he was seeking forms of universal beauty that were not bound to external form, where forms and colors act independently of natural things.

Now, I realize that one could argue against the above in various ways. For instance, some people trace Kant to the the Realist movement that arose as a reaction against Romanticism. However, that is not necessarily contradictory, because when one is advocating two worlds, one movement (e.g. Romanticism) can take off with a focus on one type of world. Then, since such a movement is one-sided, a reactionary movement (e.g. Realism) can critique it, but then adopt the other side of the dichotomy.

There are other arguments that can be made too. However, my purpose in this post was to lay out what appears to be the typical tracing from Kant, via Romanticism, to modern art. This tracing may not be typical in th sense of being commonplace; however, among those who do make the link, the above seems to be the typical argument.

I haven't done in-text citations, but everything above is from simple google searches. Some particular pages of interest are:

http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalog...isbn=0511271352

http://www.philosopher.org.uk/rom.htm

http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv4-28

http://www.wassilykandinsky.net/

http://books.google.com/books?id=wRUULBMQRtoC

http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil...nskytext4.htm#7

http://www.friesian.com/kant.htm

If anyone has access to JSTOR, there seem to be more linkages of these theories discussed in various articles.

None of the above is about Rand's view of the provenance, but I don't see any radical difference between what is discussed in these articles and Rand's view, as expressed in "The Romantic Manifesto" when she talks about the Romanticists. What Rands says is that the Romanticists of the 1800's were working with theoretically-subjectivist methodology, but "an Aristotlean sense of life".

Esthetically, the Romanticists were the great rebels and innovators of the nineteenth century. But, in their conscious convictions, they were for the most part anti-Aristotelian and leaning toward a kind of wild, freewheeling mysticism.

...

What the Romanticists brought to art was the primacy of values, an element that had been missing in the stale, ...repetitions of the Classicists' formula-copying.

In speaking of modern art, Rand again echoes the non-Objectivist idea (from way above) that the modernists were seeking beauty in what they would call a "pure" form, from colors and forms "as such".

Of course Rand has radically different idea about whether this type of apoproach can be called art, and whether it is bad or good. However, there does not appear to be anything radical about the factual historical tracing of the roots of modernism's theory, via Romanticist theory, and then back to Kant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With Millet's "The Gleaners" you will also notice the high horizon line. The "upper classes" who employ these workers are there in the 'distance', above the absurdly high horizon line, but it really isn't a convincing depiction of spatial relationships.

Here's my copy of "The Gleaners" -- how is the horizon line absurdly high?

gleaners.jpg

Here is Stone Breakers. It looks like the horizon line is obscured by hills. Is it possible, adrock, that you are basing your judgement of the horizon line on a crappy reproduction?

Breakers.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting quote which makes me even more curious about the precise mechanics of the alleged Kant/Courbet/Kandinsky chain of influence:

"I hold that painting is an essentially concrete art, and can consist only of the representation of things both real and existing. It is an altogether physical language, which, for its words, makes use of all visible objects. An abstract object, invisible or nonexistent, does not belong to the domain of painting."

– Gustave Courbet, in an open letter to a group of prospective students,

Paris, 1861

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting quote which makes me even more curious about the precise mechanics of the alleged Kant/Courbet/Kandinsky chain of influence:

"I hold that painting is an essentially concrete art, and can consist only of the representation of things both real and existing. It is an altogether physical language, which, for its words, makes use of all visible objects. An abstract object, invisible or nonexistent, does not belong to the domain of painting."

– Gustave Courbet, in an open letter to a group of prospective students,

Paris, 1861

Contrast that with Rand from The Romantic Manifesto:

It is a common experience to observe that a particular painting—for example, a still life of apples—makes its subject “more real than it is in reality.” The apples seem brighter and firmer, they seem to possess an almost self-assertive character, a kind of heightened reality which neither their real-life models nor any color photograph can match. Yet if one examines them closely, one sees that no real-life apple ever looked like that. What is it, then, that the artist has done? He has created a visual abstraction.

He has performed the process of concept-formation—of isolating and integrating—but in exclusively visual terms. He has isolated the essential, distinguishing characteristics of apples, and integrated them into a single visual unit. He has brought the conceptual method of functioning to the operations of a single sense organ, the organ of sight.

Rand would never maintain that an art is a "physical language" (you can't get any further from Rand's position). Rather, she would say art that is a conceptual language. Either way, this quote from Courbet is Kantian, and proves exactly how concrete-bound he is. He has deliberately reduced art to a "physical language", thus denying the psycho-epistemological function of art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my copy of "The Gleaners" -- how is the horizon line absurdly high?

I don't know how to answer this, other than say "look at it." The horizon line is roughly 3/4 of the way up in the painting, whereas from the perspective of the beholder (which is about eye level with the workers), it should be placed roughly 1/2 to 2/3 of the way up (at most). The head of the woman on the right is either below or right at the horizon line; but the horizon line should be around the top of the hunched backs of the two figures on the left (of the beholder).

Here is Stone Breakers. It looks like the horizon line is obscured by hills. Is it possible, adrock, that you are basing your judgement of the horizon line on a crappy reproduction?

No, I have the same painting. The horizon line is not entirely obscured by hills, as you can see it in the top right corner. Why did Courbet paint that particular part of the sky? If the stone breakers are on a hill, then why not just leave the entire background hilly? The answer is he deliberately placed the horizon line this high, and he wants the beholder to see that.

Let's say that this is how the landscape appeared in real life somehow, i.e. from the beholder's perspective you can see only a small sliver of the sky. Then that means that there necessarily must be a distance between the figures and the beginning of the hill. In other words, it would mean that the hill is some distance away from the figures. That is to say that the area immediately behind the stone breakers would not be on the hill, it would be flat terrain, and the hill would begin some distance back (say 10 feet behind the figures). If such is the case, then why can we see the entire top of the pot on the right. How about the pick axe in between the two characters? Where exactly is it? Is it right behind them? Not quite, because it appears to be also placed on the hill in the distance. If the pick axe is right behind the figures, we should be able to see a lot more sky, and less of the 'depth' of the pickaxe. If it isn't right behind the figures, but instead on the hill, then the hill would necessarily begin immediately behind the figures and we shouldn't be able to see any sky. Courbet is stressing the artifice of the work on purpose (you would never see a landscape like this), as he believes that is "real" when compared with the Romantics he disliked.

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand would never maintain that an art is a "physical language" (you can't get any further from Rand's position). Rather, she would say art that is a conceptual language. Either way, this quote from Courbet is Kantian, and proves exactly how concrete-bound he is. He has deliberately reduced art to a "physical language", thus denying the psycho-epistemological function of art.

A very interesting conclusion in Sandra Shaw's talk is that the removal of conceptual level from painting, i.e. a simple focus on the representing concretes exactly as they are without any conceptual selection, necessitates the destruction of even the perceptual level as such. That is without the re-rendering of physical perceptual concretes, what one ends up on the canvas is not even an accurate representation of those concretes.

She had some very interesting exapmles of this effect leading to the desctruction of realism in painting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, and that would confirm my statement that it's an image of hilly terrain... You don't actually know where the horizon line is in the painting, do you? And you don't know how to plot it out in perspective, do you?

See above for the Stone Breakers.

Try plotting in perspective the figure's shadows that fall on the ground, and I think you'll confirm my observation of the angle of the lighting.

I see the shadows. In order for the characters to be illuminated in the manner they are, the light would have to come from straight on (imagine the police shining a spotlight on someone). But the shadows in the back seem to say that the light is coming from slightly right of the beholder. Would you agree with this assessment?

I hate to break it to you, but The Delivery of the Keys IS NOT rendered in accurate perspective. Check the grid for yourself if you know how. It gets more and more out of proportion as it recedes from the viewer. To the experienced eye, it's quite awkward.

I printed it out and drew them; all grid lines meet in the center of the doorway of the chapel in the background. Take Masaccio's Holy Trinity for another instance, as it is considered a great feat by art historians:

masaccio_trinity_1425.jpg

Here's another image that may help you:

agora3.jpg

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way, this quote from Courbet is Kantian, and proves exactly how concrete-bound he is.

Earlier you wrote:

The clearest way to summarize Kant's influence is: "Why reproduce reality when we have art?" According to Kant, there is no particular reason why art must be representational, as that is not a basis for beauty. That is to say, if I put a swash of red paint on a canvas that induces feeling in the beholder, then I have made a work of art, and that work of art has value in and of itself. It can even be a valid form of knowledge.

If Courbet was Kantian, how did "Why reproduce reality when we have art?" (which is your view of Kant's position) become "art...can consist only of the representation of things both real and existing" (which is Courbet's position)?

How did "a swash of red paint on a canvas that induces feeling in the beholder" (which is your view of Kant's position) become "An abstract object, invisible or nonexistent, does not belong to the domain of painting" (which is Courbet's position)?

J

I printed it out and drew them; all grid lines meet in the center of the doorway of the chapel in the background.

Um, the point was that there's much more to accurate perspective than lines meeting at a vanishing point. But, anyway, I think your answers have told me what I wanted to know.

Best,

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Re The Gleaners] I don't know how to answer this, other than say "look at it." The horizon line is roughly 3/4 of the way up in the painting, whereas from the perspective of the beholder (which is about eye level with the workers), it should be placed roughly 1/2 to 2/3 of the way up (at most).

The true placement depends, to my eye, on the angle of vision of the artist/spectator. If the horizon is high, it means the angle of view is not exactly on the horizontal. Unless you are asserting that every view (in a painting) must be exactly on the horizontal, your prescription cannot hold.

Perhaps you see the field in The Gleaners as being entirely flat and level, and the angle of gaze as being 90° from the vertical? This might explain your insistence that the line "should be around the top of the hunched backs." Perhaps you might show us the correct placement?

As for The Stone Breakers, your prescription does not hold for all places and all times. Again, one must consider the angle of view to determine the 'correct' placement of the horizon line, and one must consider intervening objects and forms. Your argument brings in the pot lid, as if to insist that the pot is placed on an exact horizontal, resting on an exact horizontal plane, and that the pot lid is also placed on an exact horizontal plane -- the evidence of uneven ground tells me that one can conclude nothing regarding the horizontal plane.

The stone breakers are in a depression, below the level of the earth surface, partially surrounded by sloping quarry walls, thus the horizon line is obscured. Your argument may assert that the "horizon line is . . . in the top right corner," but the evidence does not support the assertion.

I would be interested to find out where your trained eye places the horizon line in both paintings . . . below is my estimate. Where might a proper Objectivist prescription for art place the horizon line?

BreakersHorizon.jpg

gleanersHorizon.jpg

[Edited for clarity per Snerd's question]

Edited by William Scott Scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading this topic, I did some Googling out of curiosity.

Very informative, thank you. Your post sparked my curiosity so I decided to look into this further. Below is what I found.

Kant claimed that the reflective judgment about a work of art (pleasure or displeasure we experience - someone's artistic taste) involves no recognition of the object as subsumed under a concept - that one judges the sensible presentation of the object without a concept. If based on concepts, the result will be an ordinary cognitive judgment or an evaluation of its utility or morality and not an aesthetic judgment. Pure judgment of taste is possible, he claimed, with the knowledge about the object only when we pay no attention to what it is. We must be aware of the order but we must not interpret that order as having any specific purpose. Much higher pleasure from looking at an object of art comes from our imagination harmonizing with the understanding in nonconceptual awareness of order. His famous line was that beauty lies in "purposiveness without a purpose."

He divided beauty into the free (the sublime - higher form) and merely accessory with representational and functional art being of this second, lower, type because it is limited by a concrete (it ends there). He said that, when truly successful, fine art is animated by spirit (goes beyond the object itself) which is present when a work prompts the viewer's imagination "to spread over a multitude of kindred presentations," so that the work is rich in associations but cannot be encapsulated under a determinate concept or under any one paraphrase.

He also said that it is very difficult for us to look at something with disinterestedness - as viewing the object without concern for what it is. Thus the obvious conclusion here is that the easiest way to achieve this highest artistic value is to get rid of the form - to make art non-representational. He said: "The beautiful in nature is a question of the form of the object, and this consists in limitation, whereas the sublime is to be found in an object even devoid of form." Here he attached formlessness to the concept of sublime (higher form of an aestetic value) - which was a new idea and I think the birthplace of the postmodern aesthetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Sophia,

Check out this comparison:

[Kant]...said:"The beautiful in nature is a question of the form of the object, and this consists in limitation, whereas the sublime is to be found in an object even devoid of form." Here he attached formlessness to the concept of sublime (higher form of an aestetic value) - which was a new idea and I think the birthplace of the postmodern aesthetic.

... with this, from a college course on Kandinsky:

If we begin at once to break the bonds which bind us to nature, and devote ourselves purely to combination of pure colour and abstract form, we shall produce works which are mere decoration, which are suited to neckties or carpets. Beauty of Form and Colour is no sufficient aim by itself, despite the assertions of pure aesthetes or even of naturalists, who are obsessed with the idea of "beauty." It is because of the elementary stage reached by our painting that we are so little able to grasp the inner harmony of true colour and form composition. The nerve vibrations are there, certainly, but they get no further than the nerves, because the corresponding vibrations of the spirit which they call forth are too weak. When we remember, however, that spiritual experience is quickening, that positive science, the firmest basis of human thought, is tottering, that dissolution of matter is imminent, we have reason to hope that the hour of pure composition is not far away.

Clearly Kandinsky seeks the same ideal as Kant. The only difference is that he cautions that if we try to get to pure color and form too soon, we will fail -- and end up making neckties or carpets. On the other hand, it still remains the ideal, and he feels hopeful that we will fell our way to it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you see the field in The Gleaners as being entirely flat and level, and the angle of gaze as being 90° from the vertical? This might explain your insistence that the line "should be around the top of the hunched backs." Perhaps you might show us the correct placement?

The beholder stands at eye level with the figures. I agree with where you placed the horizon line on the image of The Gleaners. As I said, I understand that it is there. My submission is that it should be lower, approximately around the level where the hunched over backs of the two figures on the left begin.

I would be interested to find out where your trained eye places the horizon line in both paintings . . . below is my estimate. Where might a proper Objectivist prescription for art place the horizon line?

(The two following diagrams are from this page on perspective.)

The horizon line is the line which represents the eye level of the beholder, on which an artist typically places a vanishing point for a given object in the painting (provided the object has lines parallel with the ground). Here is how you can find horizon line by using the vanishing point of an object in the painting (usually the easiest way to find it):

vp1.gif

The horizon line for The Stone Breakers is actually a bit higher than where you placed it in your diagram. Check out this diagram:

eyelevel.gif

After that image is shown, the page reads: The first pole is seen from above, the second from normal eye level and the third appears to be floating over your head. An object's relationship with the horizon line shows whether you are looking up, down or straight at the object. Notice that in the first diagram how "high" we are, as the beholder. Now check the placement of the horizon line in The Stone Breakers, either where you placed it on your painting, or slightly higher, which is where it really is. It doesn't matter. The fact is that it is significantly high up on the painting; I'm sure we can agree on that. But we, as the beholder, are not correspondingly "high up"; in fact, we are at eye level with the workers. You will say "But there is a hill in the background." I say in reponse: Yes, and it hasn't been accurately depicted, for the reasons I posted above, namely the pick axe and the pot, and the other various objects will also alert you that something isn't right and that there isn't enough space for the figures to be standing. If you can't get past the hill in The Stone Breakers, then try to explain to yourself why the horizon line of The Gleaners is too high.

I'm not sure why I have to carry on so much about these two particular paintings. The observations I have given about them are not in any way "Objectivist." Rather, they are the essential concretes that any art historian will alert you of when analyzing the same paintings. A known and accepted fact of the Realists was their destruction of the primacy of illusion, by means of high horizon lines and diffused drama of lighting. If you are not convinced of these two facts, then you do not understand the basics of painting, and you can find usual information in any first year art history textbook.

...

See Sophia's excellent post above for the (potential) answers to your questions. To realize this potentiality for yourself, what you need to do is link the observations that have been given to you about these particular paintings with the more abstract ideas found in her post. Good luck.

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The beholder stands at eye level with the figures. I agree with where you placed the horizon line on the image of The Gleaners. As I said, I understand that it is there. My submission is that it should be lower, approximately around the level where the hunched over backs of the two figures on the left begin.

No, that wouldn't be logical. We're looking down on their backs, so the horizon must be higher. When the people in the painting would straighten up to a standing position, their heads would be approximately at the height where the horizon now is, in other words, at normal eye level. So there is nothing wrong with the height of the horizon, and it's certainly not "absurdly high".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that wouldn't be logical. We're looking down on their backs, so the horizon must be higher. When the people in the painting would straighten up to a standing position, their heads would be approximately at the height where the horizon now is, in other words, at normal eye level. So there is nothing wrong with the height of the horizon, and it's certainly not "absurdly high".

I should not have used the word absurd. Certainly The Gleaners is more accurate than The Stone Breakers, and the horizon line is much closer to where it should be, but it remains a bit too high to be precise. Nevertheless, I rescind my use of the word "absurd."

I am a bit surprised no one wanted to discuss "The Fifer" by Manet, as I consider that to be a much more interesting composition. I suppose its artifice is much more obvious, and its link to modern art relatively clear.

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a bit surprised no one wanted to discuss "The Fifer" by Manet, as I consider that to be a much more interesting composition. I suppose its artifice is much more obvious, and its link to modern art relatively clear.

In a previous post you said that it didn't have a horizon line at all. Now that was hardly something new in painting, as indoor scenes, still lifes and portraits for obvious reasons don't have a horizon line in most cases. Perhaps you meant that the background is very sketchy. But that isn't anything new either, already for centuries portraits often had only sketchy backgrounds. See for example many of Rembrandt's portraits, or compare the Fifer with this painting by Velazquez, which was painted more than 200 years earlier:

151.L.jpg346px-Velazquez-pablo-portrait.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why I have to carry on so much about these two particular paintings. The observations I have given about them are not in any way "Objectivist." Rather, they are the essential concretes that any art historian will alert you of when analyzing the same paintings.

Ah. Forgive me, but perhaps without intending it, you insult those who take issue with your artistic erudition -- why would anyone not agree with your conclusions? Because they don't understand the essentials. Because they do not understand the basics of painting, the dunderheads.

If that is the summary conclusion, it obviates discussion. By reference to unnamed general authorities, and with an ex cathedra pronouncement of the interlocutor's baleful ignorance, discussion hits the wall. Too bad.

Here are corrected versions of both paintings. If only Courbet and Millet had had the advantage of a first year art history course . . .

gleanersCorrected.jpg

breakersCorrected.jpg

[Edited for grammar]

Edited by William Scott Scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check out this comparison:

Thanks.

Kandinsky about the spirit in his essay On the Problem of Form:

The veiling of the Spirit in the material is often so dense that there are generally few people who can see through to the Spirit (since the eyes of people, generally at such times, cannot see the Spirit).

People are blinded. A black hand is laid over their eyes...

This evolution, this movement forward and upward [aka seeing the Spirit], is only possible if the path in the material world is clear, that is, if no barriers stand in the way. This is the external condition. Then the Abstract Spirit moves the Human Spirit forward and upward on this clear path, which must naturally ring out and be able to be heard within the individual; a summoning must be possible. That is the internal condition.

then later:

Thus, one sees that the Absolute is not to be sought in the form (Materialism)...One should not make a deity of form. And one should fight for the form only insofar as it can serve as a means of expression of the inner resonance.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are corrected versions of both paintings. If only Courbet and Millet had had the advantage of a first year art history course . . .

William,

Do you realize that, in removing the hill behind the figures in the Stone Breakers, you've not "corrected" the horizon line but have come very close to revealing it?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...