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.