Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Some Questions for Fred Ross at Art Renewal

Fred Ross: A work of fine art (painting and drawing) recreates a scene from reality using visual images from the real world which are widely understood and recognizable by human beings. Then using a carefully designed composition, expresses some aspect of what it means to be human, or how human beings perceive the world. The most powerful emotional moments in life tend to make the greatest works of art, encompassing feelings of love, hate, jealousy, fear, pain, joy, surprise, mischief, crime, political unrest, peace, avarice, gluttony, poverty, hunger, etc., etc.

Some Questions for Fred Ross:

If painting ‘recreates a scene from reality’, would it not be better to use a photograph? Is it possible to imagine a scene from reality with a ‘carefully designed composition’ using photography? I think it is. Painting would be obsolete. So there ya go.

But let us presume it is not possible, for argument’s sake. Let us presume painting is necessary to recreate a ‘scene from reality using visual images from the real world’ because photography or film have not been invented yet. How does such a painted image ‘express some aspect of what it means to be human or how humans perceive the world’? It is probably not the scene from reality because reality does not express things about humans. The ‘human aspect’ must be hidden in the ‘carefully designed composition’. Indeed, if Rembrandt van Rijn were to paint, say, an annunciation, it would be a better painting compared to the annunciation painted by just anyone. If the ‘scene from reality’ would play a role in the quality of the artwork, then any annunciation would be of the same quality. I suppose that nobody would agree with that. Quality is, therefore, not in the ‘scene from reality’ but in the ‘carefully designed composition’. If this were true, would it not be better to get rid of the ‘scenes from reality using visual images from the real world’, to emphasize the ‘carefully designed composition’? This is, in fact, the theory the first abstract artist used to conceive their art.
Fred Ross, is defending abstract art against realist art. So, there ya go again.

But let us, for argument’s sake, imagine, that abstract art does not exist, and that we are stuck with realist art only. How can a composition, carefully crafted as it is, ‘express some aspect of what it is to be human’? Would it not be better to just say or write ideas about ‘aspects of what it means to be human or how humans perceive the world’? Why paint them? Why hide them in images? Why use riddles to communicate concepts, and not be clear to anyone using plain language? Should we not stop the painting-nonsense and communicate in language? Painting would be an obsolete means of communication. So there ya go yet again.

Moreover, is there an answer to the question on ‘what it means to be human’? Does it mean anything to be a human?(Suggesting it does, is a very difficult ethical point of view but I suspect Fred Ross does not realize this at all) Fred Ross thinks that the answer to this question is ‘the emotional moment’. I seriously doubt it, but let us not get into that ethical discussion. According to Ross, art is a way of communicating emotional moments such as love, hate, jealousy etc. At first glance, this may be true. But consider this: if a person is attacked by a large dog, the person would be afraid. But if a person would look at a painting of a large dog, there is no real reason for him to be afraid. Being afraid would, in fact, be very strange because the person would certainly know there is no danger because there is no real dog, only canvas and paint. Apparently, a large gap exists between emotions in real life, and emotions in art, that is, if art is capable of expressing emotions like love or hate or fear at all. (I do not think it is capable of doing that) Emotions in real life are real, emotions in art are fake, or a mere reflection of real emotions at best. I believe that the salon painters of the 19th century did not realize that, but the first modernists did.
So, there ya go.

Monday, June 09, 2008

Vernietigd

Deze is vernietigd:

http://blamkol.blogspot.com/2008/03/bijna-voltooid.html

Het idee vond ik wel aardig, misschien probeer ik het nog wel een keer te schilderen.

Nutteloos

Het is, in deze tijd, erg moeilijk om tijd te besteden aan een nutteloze aktiviteit. Als je een schilderij maakt, vraag je je constant af: waarom? Schilderijen zijn nutteloze objecten, overbodige derivaten uit een analfabetistisch tijdperk.

Schilderijen zijn niet leuk. Cartoons zijn leuk. Plaatjes zijn leuk, desnoods vakantiekiekjes. Decoratieve elementen zijn leuk

Schilderijen bieden geen inzicht, ook niet in ingewikkelde evaluatieve concepten. Daar is filosofie voor, dat communiceert tenminste helder.

Schilderijen zijn niet interessant en als ze dat wel waren dan waren ze dat omdat ze naar iets interessants verwijzen en dan kun je dat beter tentoonstellen

Schilderijen zijn niet mooi, althans niet mooier dan de natuur. Hang een foto van de natuur of iets dergelijks aan de muur of laat een klimop groeien. Dat is mooi.

Is schilderen dan therapie voor de schilder? Tijdverdrijf, ambacht om het ambacht?