Wolfflin

Wolfflin's article starts with a description of Richter's experiment in which 4 painters looking at the same landscape and trying to paint as realistically as possible, produce 4 different paintings. The conclusion drawn from this is that there is no such thing as objective vision. This seems perfectly obvious, no two people will have an identical experience of anything, not to mention that people have physical differences in the way they perceive color.


Wolfflin goes on to state another obvious - that there are differences in style between artists, but that style is also a product of the "school, the country and the race", as well as the times - "a new zeitgeist introduces a new form". What is mysterious and the question that Wolfflin tries to answer,  is how artists, using the same elements such as line, working in the same time and place, and depicting the same subject, can produce two very different works of art - what in the individual artist produces the distinctive style? Why is a drawing by Michelangelo instantly recognizable as such, or a Leonardo?


Because I am taking Baroque Art, I particularly enjoyed Wolfflin's description of Renaissance artists as seeking clarity, defining form with line, (although he does not mention the Venetian artists who worked with color, and had a much more painterly approach, what he would describe as an open form). He describes Baroque artists by saying of their work that "composition, light, and color no longer serve to merely define form, but have a life of their own....It is not a difference of quality if the Baroque departed from the age of Durer and Raphael, but as we have said, a different attitude to the world." Again, an obvious point, but very nicely put.

Jarzombek’s article points out the argument between the experience of an object and the reading of a text modifiying that experience. In reading Wolfflin’s description of Bottacelli's Venus, my experince of it is altered forever - “the radiant spread of the fingers on the breast” are words that will now at the very least focus my attention on that part of the painting whenever I look at it in the future. Scully argued that one must read about the landscape and look at photographs of it to truly have an aesthete experience. I find this absurd -  reading the a poetic description or even looking at a photo is not in any way parallel to actually experiencing the object. A description of a landscape painting is not a substitute for actually viewing the painting, and the painting cannot begin to compare to being in the actual landscape and physically experiencing it. Furthermore, reading Scully's description of a landscape means that one is experiencing it through his eyes, and as a viewer, I would prefer to have an unmodulated experience, I want to simply have an experience before I am told what it means.  When I go to a museum, I look at the work of art before I read the information on the wall - I guess I want to have that "pure" experience. 

Wolfflin

Before reading this I had a basic understanding of the meaning of “painterly” but I had never given the idea too much thought. Wolfflin really goes into it thoroughly. When I think of painterly, I think of the general style of painting in which brushstrokes are left visible in order to add expression to the work as well as reveal some of the artist's process. I had heard of drawing being described as painterly before, but I thought it was interesting that Wolfflin characterized certain sculpture and architecture as painterly also. Drawing and painting are almost the same thing in a way, but when it comes to sculpture and architecture the connection to paint requires a little more abstract thought in my mind. The connection Wolfflin makes between the complex, movement-filled baroque sculpture and the painterly style of painting is completely new to me. I cant help thinking that it seems like a little bit of a reach to call sculpture painterly because the movement in it makes its form less defined. I guess it does make sense. It's just that based on my concept of “painterly”, I would imagine painterly sculpture to be sculpture that is formed in a more loose way, leaving the marks of the artist visible. I guess I think of painterly as meaning “loose”. It was good for me to think about the concepts of the linear vs. the painterly because it is relevant to anyone who paints or draws. I don't really think about it in such decisive terms when I am working, but on some level I think it helps to be more aware of these concepts.

Koss and Dewitt Cheng..

Limits of Empathy, Limits of Empathy Theory

The other night in our Comparative Art Critique seminar, we had a guest speaker, Dewitt Cheng. Dewitt is an art critic, a writer, and covers the East Bay. Interestingly, he calls himself an art promoter. Now, some might think that an art promoter has a different connotation completely, and some might even surmise that an art promoter is too subjective to properly critique art. And that is exactly what made his presence so intriguing to me. Dewitt is an art FANATIC; he loves art, and he is worried about the future of art. He explained that the art world is even its own worst enemy at times, creating a world that is inaccessible to most. Dewitt described a scenario where the art world is dominated by critics and collectors and they communicate in their own language. And he gave us advice to become fanatics about art for ourselves and not be afraid to like or dislike any art based on the insecurities of those that “rule” the art world...I like Dewitt; he is totally and disarmingly refreshing. 

But Dewitt is not alone. In our readings, the article  “Limits of Empathy” by Koss, also takes to task the long and illustrious lineage of Aesthetic theorists. Koss Quotes Lipps at one point, “Aesthetics is either psychological aesthetics or a collection of declarations of some individuals who possess a sufficiently loud voice to proclaim his private predilections or his dependence on fashion.” Koss goes on to say the Lipps reference “may easily have been referring to “Schmarsow, Vischer, Wolfflin, or Heldebrand”. She alludes to the method of using a pseudo-scientific method to describe their own association with art and to apply that to the world. Later, science does indeed disprove much of the Empathy Theory.

What interests me is that Empathy Theory continues even today, even if it takes the form of a reaction to that theory. In other words, it is still exerting an influence on the art world, even if it is serving as the springboard to a reactionary movement. 

Dewitt’s wisdom that he shared with us is sound in a world where art has so many varied forms. Accepting art and learning to feel it is an individual experience and the critic should be as free to experience the art as the artist is free to create it. So if we are to promote art and even to protect it, lets have an honest dialogue, respecting the artists' creation and communicating honestly how the work talks to ourself. Just an idea...

Worringer - Koss Articles

Worringer's Influence I find it interesting that he gives no notion that he was affected by the "primitivism" that was going on in Paris and other places at the time within the art world. Mary Gluck gleams entries of Worringer's to discuss the the origins of his dissertation in her article "Interpreting the Primitive, Mass Culture and Modernism: The Making of Wilhem Worringer's Abstraction and Empathy." Worringer was touring the Trocadero Museum in Paris, he notes in his journal, that as he was amongst the exhibits that were "destitute of all emotional atmosphere." It is unclear whether the instance of George Simmel coming into the museum is literal or figurative but the dichotomy of the "urban" man and the primitive past sparked his interest for his thesis. The Trocadero Museum was were Picasso started to study the art of Africa seriously and in 1889 Paul Gaugin encountered the Tahitian displays that peaked his interest in the primitive. Although Picasso was after Worringer's epiphany, Gaugin was not. There were several artists that began to look to the "primitive" even before Worringer wrote the Modernist 'manifesto' that many people claim to be the birth of Modern Art. I also found it intersting that his dissertation was so shocking to the majority of academics he found it very difficult to find a teaching position, eventhough he frequently toured as a lecturer and was widely popular when doing so. There seems to be a paralell between his avant-guarde theories and the avant-guarde artwork that was being produced, both were shunned from the mainstream academies and unversities because of their power to threaten the traditional cannon of art. Worringer did place the abstract style above naturalism in his work, however it still seemed as if his discussions of the cultures that produced the inital abstractions and continued today were still referred to as inferior to his own culture. I thought that was interesting considering how strongly he felt about the importance of their artwork. Koss Article The "Limits of Empathy" article was fascinating and a good transition from Empathy Theory to Worringer's Abstraction and Empathy Theory. The overview of the theory of empathy and the many different artists and theorist made things come together a little bit better while also giving some insite to the connections between them all. I found it noteable that Schmarsow was choosen for a prominent academic position over Vischer, his mentor, and Wolffin. The downward spiral of the Empathy theory was an important thing to understand, at least for me, because it allowed for the direct comparison of the new and the old, which allowed for a deeper understanding of both. Julliet Koss does an excellent job of breaking down Worringer's theory of self-estrangement and alienation. Although German and the US went through the Industrialization later than the French and Great Britain the social effects of big cities, mass transportation and technology still had a great effect on both countries. Worringer's thesis intuitively picks up on this phenomenon that is also related to "anomonie." Not surprisingly he was a follower of the German sociologist George Simmel. Worringer's theory was not only influential in the arena of modern abstraction and style but also in the psychological aspects of art works that embody the ideas of isolation or alienation.

Worringer—Abstraction & Empathy

“Aesthetic enjoyment is objectified self-enjoyment”. This sentence comes up many times. I kinda agree. I really enjoyed the part where the writer explains man’s “fear” motivates the development of realism in art.

The happiness sought from art lies in the “possibility of taking the individual thing of the external world out of its arbitrariness and seeming fortuitousness, of eternalizing it by approximation to abstract forms and in this manner, of finding a point of tranquility and a refuge from appearances.”(P16) This idea sort of links to an ancient theory of Chinese art, which states an artist’s ultimate goal is to achieve between “likeness” and “unlikeness”. And that’s why rational systems such as perspective and golden ratio were never the essence of ancient Chinese art. When being asked the difference between western and eastern art, I always think the urge of rationality and reason is clear in western art. I don’t think however that is a “lower” development as Riegl summarized. As for myself, I have been struggling to find a balanced amount of arbitrariness and unlikeness in my work. I start to feel there’s no formula. Every time I start a new surface it is a new battlefield. It’s like I don’t know where it should end until it ends. There’s never enough certainty and all I have is instinct and a tiny bit of courage.

Another part that I enjoyed reading is towards the end of the article when Worrigner points out the need for “self-alienation”. There’s “an urge to seek deliverance from the fortuitousness of humanity as a whole, from the seeming arbitrariness of organic existence in general. Life as such if felt to be a disturbance of aesthetic enjoyment.”

Frankl/Schmarsow

The Frankl and Schmarsow readings brought attention to ones surroundings. I never give a second glance to the daily architecture I encounter however I can't say I am ever walking around the Hyatt regency or city hall. I got to thinking about the architecture that makes us feel crummy, such as office cubicles, hospitals, and though I haven't personally experienced it, prisons. I came across this article about an architect by the name of Josef Hohensinn, he designed a prison in Leoben, Austria that goes against the typical prison structure we are familiar with. His version of prison has floor to ceiling windows (bulletbroof of course),  individual pods with a mini kitchen, sound proof walls and a indoor church. His philosophy is "The more normal a life you give them here, the less necessary it is to resocialize them when they leave." This may be very true. Also, he thinks about the wardens and various employees that must spend eight hours a day there, they surely don't deserve the prison habitat. He says we punish people with architecture.
Look it up, it  is a good read!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/magazine/14prisons-t.html?pagewanted=all

Frankl & Schwarzer

As someone whose background is not in architecture, I found the Frankl article quite helpful. It was clearly laid out, and I agreed with some of his ideas, particularly that the definition of space is ordered through activity and purpose, what happens in the space is important. I'm not sure I agree, but a quote that
stood out was   "A building dies as soon as the life within it has vanished." Since I am taking Dr. Junkerman's Baroque art class, I was particularly interested in the history lesson offered here - that in the Renaissance, Humanistic ideals prevailed over the Christian, that patronage was as much about personal glory as piety, conceived as a house for God, with little regard for the congregation. The Baroque of course was all about the Reformation & Counter-Reformation; Catholic buildings became grandiose, and Protestant buildings became much more utilitarian. In the 18th century, in secular France at least, it was all about a grand setting, with mirrors everywhere to reflect the glory of the patron/owner (Frankl is mostly referring to Versailles, I think). Real, gritty every day life, of course goes on behind the scenes. In all of these first 3 phases, there is the stamp of an individual personality on the architecture, and what happens in the 19th century is that buildings become much more specialized in function, and more public. Public buildings belong to everyone, and therefore no one, and so are much more impersonal.

I am writing this in the King Library, looking out the window at a sea of functional, impersonal buildings. To my eye, there is little that is beautiful, or what I would describe as graceful, and especially hideous are two giant gray concrete cubes whose surface is perforated by black, blank windows. Frankl is mostly addressing the idea of architecture enclosing interior space, but a building has a big impact on the space it takes up in the exterior world. In Schwarzer's article, empathy theory is borough up again, Lipp's idea that empathy is a state of pleasure enduced by a feeling of consciousness of mutual longing between the soul and the thing it perceives". And further, that in the act of perceiving an object, we experience its form as if we were one with it. I must admit, I do not find my soul flying out to become one with the massive concrete blocks I am perceiving right now.

Schmarsow, Frankl, Schwartzer

The Schwartzer article I read first.  He lays out Schmarsow's ideas on architecture based on a grand historical narrative of the spatial consciousness, and although Schwartzer commends Schmarsow for deviating from the current views on architecture (like Riegl's), he says Schmarsow misses the mark by failing to recognize the variety of human spatial consciousness which are in a complex set of cultural ideas.  Ultimately, the scientific method of discovery, which seems to be a theme so far in our reading, fails Schmarsow.

The Schmarsow was better to understand after reading the Schwartzer.  You really get a sense of where he is coming from, using scientific/psychological methods to convince the audience that architecture should not be just the distant cousin from the fine arts but up front and center when it comes to the art world.  He talks about the history of space and the human sense of space which has defined architecture over the eons.  Again, this emphasis on using science and theory to derive truths about art, and in Schmarsow's case architecture.  Very Enlightenment/Modern use of thinking.

The Frankl was a departure from the other two articles and more like a history lesson than anything else.  I feel I know the "purpose", as he refers to, of why and how architecture has grown and developed from the Middle Ages up to his current time.  Still interesting though, in that he doesn't use science but historical references of Christianity's influence through the Catholic and Protestant buildings during four respective periods to illustrate how architecture has changed and functioned in day to day society.

Fiedler Reading

            After reading Fiedler, On Judging Works of Visual Art, a particular passage resonated with my interminable quest for satisfaction. The numeric section eight described the artist as only capable of creating fragmentary expressions. This is descriptive of the time I spend in my studio with this heavy feeling that I am not communicating my idea well enough through the medium in use. Regardless of how mundane my idea/expression is, it is never completely communicated. It is this disatisfaction which causes us to go back to the drawing board immediately after we have pushed out a series. It is the incomplete expression which keeps us constantly thinking of new angles to present it. "The inner activity which the artist generates from the driving forces of his nature only now and then rises to expression as artistic feat, and this feat does not represent the creative process in its entire course, but only a certain state." (page 55)

First post on the blog.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/arts/design/dog-art-at-metropolitan-museum-and-morgan-library.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1328862510-j2Lk1w73CIk94wV3tBIXfg

I love animals, particularly the ones that bark. I know this might not be relevant to the theme of the class, however, this is a pretty good article about a really interesting show. Check it out!!!!wooof

Fiedler reading

I found this reading pretty interesting. I definitely agree with Fiedler's idea that, when looking at something, as soon as we think we know what the thing is we stop really looking at it. This is an idea that I have been thinking about for a while in relation to art. This idea also relates in my mind to the main idea in Aldous Huxley's Doors of Perception, which is basically the concept that when we perceive, we are not able to take in all the information that is available. There is so much complexity in the world around us that we would go insane if we tried to perceive it all (which is basically what happens under the influence of a drug like lsd). Instead, our perception is limited in order for us to be able to conceptualize the information that we need in order to adequately go through daily life, and not much more. Fiedler's concept is similar but he is talking more about the conflict between perception and conception and how artists must be able to cope with this. I also found it interesting to read his discussion of how peoples' visual memories are insufficient because they do not perceive completely. I found this to be particularly relevant to me as an artist because I am interested in working from my imagination, which requires being able to remember visual information.

Good news and bad news...

Did anyone hear a loud shouting Sunday afternoon? No, it wasn't a fan's reaction to the Super bowl, well, not mine...but perhaps you heard me shout with relief after reading Fiedlers' "On Judging Works of Visual Art". In a manner similar to our US Constitutional authors, Fiedler has created a living document, a simple, flexible framework that allows art critics the freedom to move with the times. I LOVED this quote in particular, "...artistic achievements always spring anew and immediately from a domain which must remain inaccessible to the influences of intellectual reflection." Bravo...I love this guy...
But not only does Fiedler's treatise emancipate the artist, it also gives a flexible guideline to the critic. One of my favorite quotes that is definitely pointed to the critic, "...that he who judges will see the art which exists at all does not require the appreciation of being said to be good. However, it can never be bad." This man was way ahead of his time and our next author, Adolf Hildebrand, apparently held Fiedler in low regard (which I found out is not the case at all).
Hildebrand's "Problem of Form" especially in Part II, devotes a great deal of energy towards making a mockery of any art form that was "new". Given that he wrote his treatise near the turn of the century, at the age of 60, I am compelled to regard (or disregard) him as a disgruntled critic, unable to appreciate the new movements of his times. His words are in fact so damning of all things new, that perhaps they may have even served as a catalyst for emerging artists to go even further...Oh, if only Hildebrand would have listened to Fiedler....
Having read both of these works, imagine my surprise, when upon doing a little research, I find that Fiedler was inspired by and friends with Hildebrand! It makes me wonder what transpired in the 30 years between Fiedler's work and Hildebrand's.

Right Brain, Left Brain

As I read though the readings this week I couldn't stop thinking about what Ken Robinson said in a 2006 TED talk about how schools kill creativity. Robinson's point was mainly that schools tend to focus only on developing the left side of the brain (the mathematica, analytical side) and fail to engage the right side of the brain (the creative, visual side) and some students learned best by engaging the right side of their brain more.

While I enjoy my fair share of philosophical banter now and again, I found these heavy German writings hard to digest in context to how I relate to art as an artist. I enjoy engaging with the world intuitively, mainly from my right hemisphere, and to reverse my natural instincts and try to process what these writers were presenting felt uncomfortable and confusing. I did grasp what Vischer was suggesting when he described connecting with an art piece from a universal human perspective; but on a whole, dissecting art in this way as an intellectual takes away almost all of what I enjoy about art making and art appreciation.

Empathy and Embodiment in Contemporary Art

Digital Bodies / Cyborgs

N. Katherine Hayles' Virtual Bodies and Flickering Signifiers are dense with lots of reference to contemporary languages, literatures, and theories, including information theory and Jacques Lacan's "floating signifiers". Information theory is the basis of her writing, specifically: "even though information provides the basis for much of contemporary society, it is never present in itself.” She also restates Lacan's statement as a modern version: "Language is a code."

Her point is quite simple. she is concerned about dematerialization due to technologies and the change of our relationship to embodied experiences with things around us. She uses terms, such as "presence and absence" and "pattern and randomness" to illustrate her idea. The shift to pattern and randomness from presence and absence is everywhere in our daily life and she used contemporary literatures as examples.

What's interesting about her writing is the fact that information technology has an impact on the economical aspect of the shift: from owning durable goods to accessing to information or data. Also it affects all aspects of contemporary literatures in terms of where narratives take place, who plays subjects and how they transform, and how readers experience or read stories. And this shift is perhaps implying us that our physical world is becoming inhabitable place for human beings. These points resonate me the most.

However, according to her, presence and pattern haven't disappeared totally yet. They are displaced into pattern and randomness. Will they disappear eventually? If so, I wonder when? (not in my life I hope)

Body Art / Corporeal Performances

In "The Body in Action: Vito Acconti", Amelia Jones uses Acconti’s works to support her theory on body art. She describes his works as “ambivalent, self-exposing yet self-confirming body art works” and praises him as “one of the most important theorists of the reembodiment of art production and, correlatively, art reception as a radical challenge to modernist formalism”. Acconti defines his body art as “… exchange between artist and viewer; he has explained his obsession with his own body/ self as stemming from his desire to interrogate art not as a “unique object” but as a “distribution system” involving the phenomenological “interchange” of subjects within the social” (similar view as Merlieau-Ponty). In other words, emphasizing the radical interdependence with the other in relation to body/self. This is particularly important in order to understand the rest of her reading. For example, Acconti repeatedly theatricalizes the body with femininity in his works due to his obsession with masculinity. This successfully creates heterosexual, white masculinity a radical instability. Jones also analyzes Acconti’s work using Iris Marion Young’s feminist phenomenology of body motility theory which shows the difference in approach and effects between male body artists and female body artists. Jones writes as “What Acconci’s work shows us, in contrast, is that, in fact, this “continuity” and “transcendence” are elaborate performances that themselves must be continually enacted in order to confirm their privilege as masculine.” Overall I like Jone’s points (above), which open up a whole new understanding about body art (especially male body art).

Empathy / Abstraction

It’s interesting that Alois Riegl incorporates Gottfriied Semper’s “art of dressing” theory to support his counter argument about the origin of geometric styles. In the Geometric Sylte, the author in fact stretches Semper’s theory further and apply the theory, “advancing principle of dressing as the origin of all architecture” as well as over “other media”, such as ceramics and metal works to support his idea: the origin of geometric styles didn’t derive from the technique of weaving but “but the pure fruit of an elementary artistic desire for decoration” as his example shown in the case dwellers of Aquitaine.

However, according to the author, Semper contradicts himself by expressing “the original of creative activity is still believed to postdate the invention of the techniques used to create protection for the body.” This to me seems a relief as an artist but Semper’s theory is certainly interesting to explore (as Riegl did). The author gives Semper a credit by saying “the passage in Der Stil that discusses the topics is still well worth reading, even if it’s no longer authoritative”. I definitely agree with him, especially “worth reading”.

I also like the Juliet Koss's "On the Limits of Empathy" especially how Worringer develops his theory around or against Lipp's formula of "Einjhlung". Worringer's idea was definitely influenced by Lipp, Hildebrand, Riegl, Schopenhauer, Gottfried Semper and Wolfflin, as well as abstract artists at that time. It seems natural to connect the theory of Einjhlung (Empathy) and Abstraction. In doing so, I think Worringer was clever and a great observer of the world at that time.

Kinesthetic Bodies / Architectural Space

I thought this week’s readings are quite fascinating. I can relate all three authors’ ideas about architecture as an embodied art form (as described in each reading) to my work. Paul Frankl focuses on purpose and intention of architecture, as well as essence and function. Mitchell W. Schwarzer takes physical factors and kinetic perception, such as eye muscular movement and tactile ideas, into consideration. He says: “The mature spatial consciousness associated with architecture is clearly dynamic. For Schmarsow, since all spatial awareness must originate within an apparently overriding concept of self-awareness, it follows that all architectural forms depend on bodily structure, sensation, and movement. The spatial form of a building can likewise be viewed as the result of a repertory of gestures and motions, a projection of desires and needs from the subject to the world.” August Schmarzer addresses “art of dressing” in his theory. I thought this is exactly what I’ve been thinking all along while I was reading the other readings (I read them first). I definitely want to research more about “art of dressing”. It sounds intriguing and appropriate for my work …

Distances Bodies / Visual Judgments

There are 3 readings this week. After reading “The Problem of Form in Painting and Sculpture" by Adlof Hilderbrand, it made sense for other readings. My initial response is that it’s essential for any artist across all media to know their objects/subject matters kinesthetically and to be able to translate the knowledge into their visual language believably. I think this is also related to other readings.

Empathetic Bodies / Symbolic Forms

It’s really interesting to see different arguments and thoughts surrounding aesthetic theories have been formulated in Germany from late 18th century to early 20th century.

Combing both readings certainly helps to have a better perspective regarding the subject matter and it particularly compliments understanding the theory by Robert Vischer against other theorists.

Vischer

Although this was a relatively dense reading and admittedly I spaced out on a couple of the sections, the beginning was well laid out. I was able to gleam off the introduction that he was expanding on his father's theory that argued against the Herbartian school. The idea that no form exist without content is built on with R. Vischer's theory that the observer fills a devoid object with emotional content if it lacks, therefore it never goes without content. I thought it was interesting how much of his own thought he contributes to other authors like Karl Albert Scherner, which is basically where he got his idea for empathetic art. The the ninth page of the article I found it interesting how he starts to relate eye muscles, movements and reactions to emotions in order to strengthen his argument. He defines the immediate sensation and then the responsive sensation in terms of stimulation. He then proceeds to explain how light can stimulate the eye muscles and their movement and calling it a responsive sensation. The part where I get lost is how he connects a responsive sensation to "these subtle emotions," as he refers to them at the end of the paragraph. Further up and through this latter sections he also chooses his words carefully to support his argument of emotion. He says the "so-called" after effect of color contrast, as if to discredit it as an objective test and to say it truly is just the eye reacting to an "unpleasant" sensation.