THE TECHINICAL LANGUAGE OF THE ARTIST
The arts have an important technical aspect which must be considered for greater understanding and enjoyment. This technical side has direct bearing on what the artist can accomplish physically (in other words, the limitations or advantages of the various media) and on what this may mean in ultimate spiritual terms.
In the technical area we shall become aware of the major role played by drawing, particularly in the traditional arts. The artist is first and foremost a sensitive organism receiving visual and emotional stimuli from the outside world. These stimuli are absorbed and translated into the language of art through various technical media as well as through the artistic idiom of the time, rendered in the artist’s personal manner. Many, if not most, of the arts do this with the aid of drawing, which here acts in the capacity of planning device.
We must not discount the independent function of the drawing in an art form by itself, especially since the Renaissance, but its chief traditional use has been as a basis, a preliminary sketch for buildings, paintings, sculpture, and the industrial arts.
WHAT DETERMINES STYLE?
We are also to investigate the history of the arts. This will bring in its turn a realization of the different standards of taste that prevail in each period, and sometimes of the relationship between the social and historical forces of each epoch and the cultural expression of that time as revealed in its arts. We must think of these epochs as differing from each other and yet linked together in the sense that one period is often a reaction in many ways to the period preceding. Moreover, certain artistic traditions are handed on from one generation to another, as revealed in techniques such as bronze casting, lithography, etching, and oil painting. Sometimes, techniques are revived after many generations, such as the revival of Renaissance fresco painting in modern Mexican art.
We should note that the history of art is related to the history of each separate epoch and to history as a whole, and that the individual arts (painting, sculpture, etc.) are related to each other as well as to the period. This means that the arts influence each other; in given periods one art may perhaps be dominant, as in the Gothic age when the architectural concept (that is, the idea of the cathedral) was the most important. No art exists entirely apart from any other in a particular era; they are all connected with the general cultural spirit of the time.
|
|
|
Just as art in general is part of a continuous development, each artist will be found to have a history of his own which, although part of the cultural expression of his age, is still an individual and personal thing.
We may also speak of aesthetic or artistic problems as having their own history. By this we mean that the actual elements which go into the creation of a work of art: space, light, proportion, etc., proceed in a parallel fashion to that of art as a whole. Space, for example, is treated differently from one culture to another, and yet it remains part of a total development process. In the change from the Romanesque to the Gothic kind of space, for instance, we find a continuity and yet a significant difference as well.
Each period has its own specific artistic character and dominant trends - sculpturesque, architectonic, or pictorial. This character or trend is the result in part of the socio-historical forces of that particular time, their relationship to the immediate or distant past, and finally the many expressions of thousands of creative individualities. The three elements are mutually interdependent and interactive, stimulating and restraining each other, and, taken together, ultimately constitute the creative attitude of the time.
THE QUESTION OF TASTE
This creative attitude expresses itself in a kind of artistic taste which differs from period to period.
Two things must be noted here: first, that those separate periods had their own taste in art (just as we have ours today); second, that our attitude toward their art is conditioned to a great extent by the prevailing taste of our own time. A simple illustration will help make the latter point clear. Rembrandt, who died in 1669, outlived his own era, so that by the time of his death, Dutch painting had already entered into a somewhat formal and even aristocratic type of expression best represented by Vermeer, who was born a quarter of a century after him. Further during the 18th century, in the face of the dominantly elegant and decorative Rococo art of France, the serious and soulful heritage left by Rembrandt would necessarily be less popular than ever. On the other hand, during the Romanticism of the early 19th century (see Delacroix) Rembrandt’s emotional quality, his dramatic lightened effects, and his specific concern with the human being made him very popular.
|
|
|
Thus we have two separate problems: how a given period looks on its own art, and how it looks on the art of another period of culture removed in time or space. Furthermore, the way we view the art of others is conditioned to a great extent by the way we perceive our own, that is, what we consider good or worth while.
A question that naturally emerges is whether or not we have the right to criticise and condemn any type of artistic, literary, or musical taste because it does not conform to our own. Can we take the position that Rubens’ women are too heavy, or Egyptian painting too flat, or Chinese music too discordant? Or, should we rather, try to realize that since each of these art forms is a legitimate and serious expression of its own time and place, designed (usually unconsciously) to meet certain spiritual needs, we must give it the same careful consideration that we feel our own taste is entitled to receive?
Дата добавления: 2019-02-22; просмотров: 135; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!