Tongues of Representation

#ABSTRACT ART # ART, ART HISTORY, CASPAR DAVID FRIEDRICH, CULTURE, FAUVISM, FRANCESCO GOYA, MATISSE #ROMANTICISM # TRACY EMIN, TURNER # UNCATEGORIZED #VENUS DE MILO #WANDERER ABOVE THE SEA OF FOG

E.H Gombrich wrote in his famous book “the Story of Art”, that we cannot understand a work of art without being able to share this sense of liberation and triumph which the artist felt when he looked at his own achievement: the triumph over the generation before him, that indicated gain or progress beyond anything that was known before.

But is there indeed anything like true progress and liberation in art? Or is it that each new generation at some point simply must revolt against its fathers by demonstrating different ways of looking at the world?

Gombrich also claimed that there may be no such thing as art at all. There may be only artists and their story: a story of human beings whose creativity reflected their own life experience and have nothing to do with revolting against any past trends that belong to the grand history that has already been conceived and manifested by the generations of humans existing well before them.

These cultural trends are generally known under names that were given to them by art historians/art critics- usually ending with “-ism”- as for example Romanticism which described the movement in art and literature in the 19th century.

Romanticism, however, slips through the fingers of anyone who attempts to define it as there are as many Romanticisms as there are Romantic artists.

Just look at the artworks of two Romantic painters: Caspar David Friedrich’s “Wanderer above the Sea of Fog” (1818) and Francesco Goya’s “The third of May” (1808).

What you can see on the Friedrich’s painting is a portrait of a man contemplating a seascape.

Although the artist’s colour palette is muted and his brushstrokes are invisible, this painting is about the unstoppable power of elements that one can only admire safely from a distance.

Goya’s work of art from the same period appears to be quite different. As we can see, the artist uses vivid colours, bold brushstrokes and his painting does not attempt to be hyper realistic.

Its subject matter is however again, the pure, raw collision of anonymous masses in conflict, which – just like the seascape from the Friedrich’s painting above- is another kind of unstoppable force that will consume anyone who gets to close.

Both paintings are revolutionary in their own terms when confronted with classical tradition and its cannon. They are stripped from the kind of restrained harmony that was so celebrated by neo-classicist artists who came before them.

For that reason, these artworks are examples of truly bold attempt to achieve an unrestricted self-expression in the choice of subject matter and the use of very individualistic painting technique.

But it was not until the beginning of the 20th century when the artists could achieve the actual, unrestricted self-expression, and were truly unconstrained by any prescribed canons. This is when they began to gather themselves into self-defining –isms.

Creation of the new –ism (and there were so many of them in those days) often resulted in making of public statement about its importance or significance.

By issuing such manifestos, the artist representing particular –ism would often proudly demonstrate the aspirations of his movement and sense of relation (or lack of it) with the art of the past and the future.

It was the first time in the history of art as well, when revolting against old standards and going hand in hand with controversy became the new norm.

Fauvists (“The Wild ones”) for example were the ones known for their use of very bold colours as demonstrated in the artwork called the “Joy of life” (1906) by Henri Matisse, which is pictured below.

The name of this movement was given by an art critic who hated the artwork and then this name was appropriated by artists as a form of celebration of their own creative freedom.

We must remember however that once upon the time there were no manifestoes and no –isms imposed on creative humans and for that reason we may try to look at the history of art as a story of trends differently – by stripping it of the all –isms and attempting to find for it a different sense of belonging.

If we take this route and read the artwork in isolation from all those –isms, or even in separation from the entire grand history of the mankind, we will probably notice that the artists’ styles and their creativity could be split into two very different tongues.

One of these trends has its roots in prehistoric times, when art was nearly a religious experience and its emphasis continued through the centuries up to date, for example in the strange beauty of sculptures in Ancient Greece such as Venus de Milo a classical statue excavated on the Greek island of Melos in 1820.

If we take a closer look at the masterpieces of the artists who speak this tongue, it is obvious that their main theme is discovering the ideal and its divine beauty that is hidden within the physical form.

The sculpture of Venus de Milo is for instance great representation of this trend as it embodies the perfect image of celestial woman.

The second trend or language does not recognize existence of such ideals. It evolved around revealing the truth about form.

Artists who speak this tongue have the courage to show its subject matter as it is, in its entire unpolished reality. Like Tracy Emin, for instance, who exposed to the publicity her own bed.

We do not get to see the divine female in our example of Tracy’s Emin bed, but an actual, earthy woman portrayed with an uncompromised honesty.

Another important element of our discussion about the languages of the works of art would be the discovery of the abstract art. This was the most important aspect of revolution of the 20th century –isms.

Legitimizing this form of expression has not only rejected 19th century Academic canons of perfection, but also the entire traditional approach to presenting the natural form in the Western world.

This new attitude has changed the language of the image and role of the public and critics in responding to it in major way, as the artwork presented to them could be no longer judged by its likeness.

It also finally allowed the artist to reflect shapes from the visible world in artwork that contained no observable objects and just have a play around with it.

As a result of this new approach, art finally became pure expression and construction rather than imitation of reality.

Many examples of the abstract work are exhibited in London in Tate Gallery- as for instance Henri Matisse’s large pastel composition of rectangle forms titled “The Snail” (1953).

Lack of the actual snail as the subject matter is not so revolutionary in this case, as in any other artwork with no visible object created in 20th century.

But a close comparison of the nearly equally nonfigurative “Steamer in a Snowstorm” (1842) created by Romantic painter William Turner makes us realize how tricky judging according to the timescale and labelling by –isms is.

Isn’t the Turner’s painting also just an exciting composition of swirling colours just as Matisse’s composition of rectangle forms is?

Isn’t it true, that without reading the description underneath these two masterpieces, one could hardly realize that they were created centuries apart?

Was this revolutionary language of speaking about the form without showing it in existence before it was widely accepted by the “invention” of 20th century -isms?

And despite of the fact that these two artists were using the same language of non-figurative representation, can we say that they are “talking” about the same thing?

As we all know, development of Turner’s art, before reaching his dynamic and exciting style, started from simple topographic drawings and paintings with all its concern for order and harmony that was so respected by the old masters.

Then he went beyond the tradition of straightforward representation, enhancing his work with a sense of drama, which was the beginning of discovery of his individual artistic style.

As Turner’s career was progressing, he began to use vivid colours. These were laid over one another on the canvas rather than being premixed on the palette, which was another revolutionary step in developing his original language.

And finally, at some point of his artistic journey, he invented his own, unique tongue and became a mature artist celebrated up to date as one of the greatest artists of all times.

One could claim that Matisse, who created “the Snail “had an easier pathway as he was not born in the era of the old masters and prescribed cannons like Turner so there was no need to revolt against anything.

We already know that before discovering his own abstract language, Matisse’s started as “the Wild One”, a liberated Fauvist with very avant-garde lack of respect for form.

The Fauvists were unconstrained by the actual colour of their subject matter or about rules of perspective, as we can see from the early Matisse’s painting “the Joy of life” that was shown above.

The Fauvists could paint green bodies and orange grass if they wanted to or have no bodies in their paintings at all. There was often no longer any unmistakably noticeable visual object in their artworks and not even representation of objects, but independent colour that could finally become a theme itself.

It was the ultimate freedom of expression no artist in 19th century could ever experience.

But Matisse’s discovery of his truly individual artistic tongue started not with Fauvism, but as in the case of Turner, with a journey.

In 1906 the artist travelled to Algeria. And when he returned from his travel, Islamic art became a crucial point of reference to him.

Since then, the key to reading his artwork and understanding it was not hidden within the wild and unrestricted expression inherited from the Fauvists, but in its inner balance. This was so unique to his artistic language. Matisse wanted each painting to become its own world.

Every element was equally important in his composition: the position of objects in the image, the empty spaces around them and the proportions- as anything not necessary could disturb its inner harmony.

This approach was most certainly reflected in his abstract composition “The Snail”.

According to the artist’s daughter, Matisse made many drawings of snails before attempting to create his abstract composition. Then he took the scissors and combined pairs of complementary colours to create harmonious, concentric arrangement based on the spiral pattern of the snail’s shell.

Therefore, if we compare “The Snail”, with dramatic „Steamer in a Snowstorm,” we can conclude that Matisse’s work is carefully crafted as it reflected his desire for achieving the divine harmony within the form.

Turner’s daring artwork, on the other hand was more about the crude reality of the snowstorm captured with the earthy wilderness that one can only encounter in nature.

Turner was seeking the truth in his artwork. Matisse tried to express the ideal. Both were revolutionary in their own terms.

Bibilography:

1. H. Gombrich, The Story of Art, London 1995

2. Essers, Henri Matisse, Master of Colour, Koln 2000

3. Gerhardus, D. Gerhardus, Expressionism From artistic commitment to the beginning of a new era, Oxford 1979

4. Hardy, History & Techniques of the Great Masters TURNER, London 2002

5. Little, …isms Understanding Art, London 2000

6. wikipedia (all images)