Painting Search Goes Global; Hate List Counters Great List
I just don't get this, however my repulsion by this apparent fascination with ranking paintings by some mysterious criteria is somewhat off-set by this, an unofficial response poll that seeks to find "The Most Overrated Painting." What makes this so much worse than the BBC & NGA poll are the "nominees" and the comments made by those suggesting contenders.
Here is a sample:
"Turner. Possibly the most boring artist ever." Posted by Zee on July 26, 2005 04:09 PM.
"Guernica - terrifying depiction of war? Bah! It looks like a rather jolly little do to me. ohh! A headless bull!" Posted by Alastair on July 26, 2005 04:14 PM.
"I've never understood the fuss over Munch's 'The Scream.' It looks like something my girlfriend would have done when we were 16-year-old "goths." Posted by Charlie on July 26, 2005 04:16 PM.
"I would distinguish between the insipid (Fragonard, Lorrain, Constable) and the really aesthetically vile like Jackson Pollack. All of his droolings should be hidden away forever." Posted by Sandy Camargo on July 26, 2005 04:20 PM.
"Anything by Picasso,ESPECIALLY Guernica, EVERYTHING by Warhol, ESPECIALLY the soup cans, and most of the stuff by whats his face the guy who did flat acres of boring color. Oh yes, Mark Rothko. Who on earth would want to hang this crap in the house?" Posted by Sandya on July 26, 2005 04:51 PM.
Wow - I mean really, to have Picasso ("ESPECIALLY Guernica") placed in a trash heap with Pollock, Munch and Turner is downright ignorant. Detesting Picasso with such venom is inexplicable; a disliking of Warhol and Rothko, while not entirely unfounded since both are controversial artists, is still equally confusing given the complete absence of an intelligent justification or explanation.
Fortunately, a few commenters shared my reaction. I will focus on one in particular:
"I am not going to vote for my least favourite art- work-- to categorise art in this way is a vapid, culturally ignorant and philistine parlour game. if you don't believe me, look at the level of discourse on this blog. Jackson Pollock in studio 54? As far as i'm aware he was long gone by the time it opened-As for the person who nominated the Marcus Harvey- can you not tell the difference between a mediated representation of a murderer and the actual crimes? Marcus Harvey's work is about representation and not the crimes themselves. Duh. Fragonard- noxious? he's a genius. You lot have no taste." Posted by Jonathan Schofield on July 26, 2005 04:55 PM
Mr. Schofield points out several problems with the discourse on this topic and, in my opinion, the problem with attempting to find the "greatest" painting in the UK or elsewhere. First, it requires people to make an assertion based on whatever knowledge they have of art and art history which, to put it delicately, is often substandard. The anachronism he refers to with Jackson Pollock is in response to a comment that suggests Pollock's canvases resemble what he might have left at the bottom of a Studio 54 toilet bowl after a night of drinking. The comment clearly comes from someone lacking any knowledge of the historical, and art historical, context in which Pollock exists, something I'm sure a significant number of others share who participate in one of these types of polls. This leads to the second point, that decisions are being based entirely on individual personal taste, hardly a satisfactory basis on which to judge artistic greatness. Mr. Schofield himself states that the most critical commenters "have no taste," confirming that whichever side you're on, taste plays a role in how you feel about a work of art.
On judging artistic greatness on the basis of personal taste, Schofield addresses a critique of Marcus Harvey’s portrait of Mrya Hindley and correctly points out the motivation behind the controversial work of art that depicts the child-killer’s face made from the handprints of children. A previous commenter nominates the portrait for "most hated picture" (yes - the title of the list varies from comment to comment), essentially because they feel the work lacks sensitivity, concluding that it is an “obscenity.” This is followed by some rather inarticulate banter about how “It does not ask meaningful qustions [sic] of us or nurture debate - it simply occupies a space in the nations [sic] culture made vacant by pain and sorrow - a place where our deepest fears reside, and lurks there to remind us of how debased we might become.”
I disagree completely. The work demonstrates a remarkable and unprecedented balance between the evil and grotesque and the pure and innocent. The work does not replace the pain and sorrow associated with the heinous crimes committed by Hindley, but rather forces us to directly confront those emotions. The raw nature of the composition is intentional and unapologetic. Art is classically a medium in which we may express and evoke emotion, be it negative or otherwise. Such a portrait as that by Harvey does this with such skill and creativity that many modern artists can only dream of achieving. Love it or hate it, it is a remarkable work of art.
Personal taste is typically what defines the methodology behind the private collector. One collects works of art based on what they find pleasing, perhaps because they find the work’s subject matter enjoyable or perhaps because the formal elements such as line and color coordinate with the location in which the work will be hung in their home, office, etc. This is not to say that collectors do not appreciate the larger, art historical significance of the work or its producer, however their collecting is more likely to lack the organization and sophistication that museums and cultural institutions possess. In part, this is because institutions are governed by a collections policy and mission statement that strictly dictates their collecting ambitions and focuses their acquisitions on works of art that meet their mission and gives depth to a permanent collection that represents their established policies.
Each person who appreciates the fine arts has their preferences for certain periods, styles, artists or media and there is nothing wrong with that. Ultimately, one who truly appreciates art must look past their own biases and prejudices to examine the real value a work of art may possess. If an individual prefers the finely detailed and decorative still lifes of de Heem or the beautifully emotional and historically narrative scenes of Delacroix, surely works by Pollock or Kandinsky might be difficult to digest, but to deny them the historical importance and aesthetic merits they deserve is to demonstrate an unforgivable ignorance of art history and the fine arts more generally. I have no reservation in saying that I don't really enjoy the majority of works by Paul Gauguin. I find his overall style irritatingly primitive and flat (both intentional stylistic qualities, minus the irritating part). I also find that his Tahiti period is wrought with contradictions between what he was attempting to convey in his images of natives and the life he led while there, something that numerous scholars have pointed out. However, I would be quite wrong to say that Gauguin has no talent, that his work is worthless and is not worth discussion or contemplation. Gauguin and other Fauvists used color in a way that truly shaped modern painting (think Munch and Chagall) and he was exceptional at depicting scenes from alternative perspectives. In the end, when contemplating the importance of a work of art such that one would call it "great" or even "over-rated," personal taste should be a non-factor.
One final note since I believe something should be said about the canon of art history which I believe should be approached with caution and an understanding that the canon does not always celebrate praiseworthy artists and perhaps over-emphasizes the significance of others. One might criticize the canon as nothing more than an institutionalized version of personal taste, but there is something to be said for longevity and some art and artists withstand the test of time and cultural evolution with remarkable durability. It is also important to understand that "the canon" is divisible into subcategories based on genre, media, geographical location, etc. A work of art that is undeniably canonic in one subcategory may be omitted or considered questionably canonic in another subcategory. When we attempt to identify the greatest painting in the UK (which, if you remember, must be held in the collection of a public institution), we are ignoring a significant portion of the art history canon that includes sculpture, works on paper, new media, etc., as well as works in other geographical locations. Thus, a work such as Sir Henry Raeburn's Reverend Robert Walker Skating on Duddingston's Loch is able to make the list because it is considered a canonic work within the history of British art, but would surely be omitted from a list that examines a broader portion of the canon.
In other words, we must examine the greatness of art not solely though our eyes as we see the works today, but we must understand them in terms of their historical significance as well. Art should be examined, understood and appreciated for several reasons using various criteria for judging, but personal taste should be left out of the equation. The canon is built on an understanding of a long history of art and to obliterate it in one fell swoop by attempting to identify the "most overrated" or even "the greatest" painting is just plain absurd.
Here is a sample:
"Turner. Possibly the most boring artist ever." Posted by Zee on July 26, 2005 04:09 PM.
"Guernica - terrifying depiction of war? Bah! It looks like a rather jolly little do to me. ohh! A headless bull!" Posted by Alastair on July 26, 2005 04:14 PM.
"I've never understood the fuss over Munch's 'The Scream.' It looks like something my girlfriend would have done when we were 16-year-old "goths." Posted by Charlie on July 26, 2005 04:16 PM.
"I would distinguish between the insipid (Fragonard, Lorrain, Constable) and the really aesthetically vile like Jackson Pollack. All of his droolings should be hidden away forever." Posted by Sandy Camargo on July 26, 2005 04:20 PM.
"Anything by Picasso,ESPECIALLY Guernica, EVERYTHING by Warhol, ESPECIALLY the soup cans, and most of the stuff by whats his face the guy who did flat acres of boring color. Oh yes, Mark Rothko. Who on earth would want to hang this crap in the house?" Posted by Sandya on July 26, 2005 04:51 PM.
Wow - I mean really, to have Picasso ("ESPECIALLY Guernica") placed in a trash heap with Pollock, Munch and Turner is downright ignorant. Detesting Picasso with such venom is inexplicable; a disliking of Warhol and Rothko, while not entirely unfounded since both are controversial artists, is still equally confusing given the complete absence of an intelligent justification or explanation.
Fortunately, a few commenters shared my reaction. I will focus on one in particular:
"I am not going to vote for my least favourite art- work-- to categorise art in this way is a vapid, culturally ignorant and philistine parlour game. if you don't believe me, look at the level of discourse on this blog. Jackson Pollock in studio 54? As far as i'm aware he was long gone by the time it opened-As for the person who nominated the Marcus Harvey- can you not tell the difference between a mediated representation of a murderer and the actual crimes? Marcus Harvey's work is about representation and not the crimes themselves. Duh. Fragonard- noxious? he's a genius. You lot have no taste." Posted by Jonathan Schofield on July 26, 2005 04:55 PM
Mr. Schofield points out several problems with the discourse on this topic and, in my opinion, the problem with attempting to find the "greatest" painting in the UK or elsewhere. First, it requires people to make an assertion based on whatever knowledge they have of art and art history which, to put it delicately, is often substandard. The anachronism he refers to with Jackson Pollock is in response to a comment that suggests Pollock's canvases resemble what he might have left at the bottom of a Studio 54 toilet bowl after a night of drinking. The comment clearly comes from someone lacking any knowledge of the historical, and art historical, context in which Pollock exists, something I'm sure a significant number of others share who participate in one of these types of polls. This leads to the second point, that decisions are being based entirely on individual personal taste, hardly a satisfactory basis on which to judge artistic greatness. Mr. Schofield himself states that the most critical commenters "have no taste," confirming that whichever side you're on, taste plays a role in how you feel about a work of art.
On judging artistic greatness on the basis of personal taste, Schofield addresses a critique of Marcus Harvey’s portrait of Mrya Hindley and correctly points out the motivation behind the controversial work of art that depicts the child-killer’s face made from the handprints of children. A previous commenter nominates the portrait for "most hated picture" (yes - the title of the list varies from comment to comment), essentially because they feel the work lacks sensitivity, concluding that it is an “obscenity.” This is followed by some rather inarticulate banter about how “It does not ask meaningful qustions [sic] of us or nurture debate - it simply occupies a space in the nations [sic] culture made vacant by pain and sorrow - a place where our deepest fears reside, and lurks there to remind us of how debased we might become.”
I disagree completely. The work demonstrates a remarkable and unprecedented balance between the evil and grotesque and the pure and innocent. The work does not replace the pain and sorrow associated with the heinous crimes committed by Hindley, but rather forces us to directly confront those emotions. The raw nature of the composition is intentional and unapologetic. Art is classically a medium in which we may express and evoke emotion, be it negative or otherwise. Such a portrait as that by Harvey does this with such skill and creativity that many modern artists can only dream of achieving. Love it or hate it, it is a remarkable work of art.
Personal taste is typically what defines the methodology behind the private collector. One collects works of art based on what they find pleasing, perhaps because they find the work’s subject matter enjoyable or perhaps because the formal elements such as line and color coordinate with the location in which the work will be hung in their home, office, etc. This is not to say that collectors do not appreciate the larger, art historical significance of the work or its producer, however their collecting is more likely to lack the organization and sophistication that museums and cultural institutions possess. In part, this is because institutions are governed by a collections policy and mission statement that strictly dictates their collecting ambitions and focuses their acquisitions on works of art that meet their mission and gives depth to a permanent collection that represents their established policies.
Each person who appreciates the fine arts has their preferences for certain periods, styles, artists or media and there is nothing wrong with that. Ultimately, one who truly appreciates art must look past their own biases and prejudices to examine the real value a work of art may possess. If an individual prefers the finely detailed and decorative still lifes of de Heem or the beautifully emotional and historically narrative scenes of Delacroix, surely works by Pollock or Kandinsky might be difficult to digest, but to deny them the historical importance and aesthetic merits they deserve is to demonstrate an unforgivable ignorance of art history and the fine arts more generally. I have no reservation in saying that I don't really enjoy the majority of works by Paul Gauguin. I find his overall style irritatingly primitive and flat (both intentional stylistic qualities, minus the irritating part). I also find that his Tahiti period is wrought with contradictions between what he was attempting to convey in his images of natives and the life he led while there, something that numerous scholars have pointed out. However, I would be quite wrong to say that Gauguin has no talent, that his work is worthless and is not worth discussion or contemplation. Gauguin and other Fauvists used color in a way that truly shaped modern painting (think Munch and Chagall) and he was exceptional at depicting scenes from alternative perspectives. In the end, when contemplating the importance of a work of art such that one would call it "great" or even "over-rated," personal taste should be a non-factor.
One final note since I believe something should be said about the canon of art history which I believe should be approached with caution and an understanding that the canon does not always celebrate praiseworthy artists and perhaps over-emphasizes the significance of others. One might criticize the canon as nothing more than an institutionalized version of personal taste, but there is something to be said for longevity and some art and artists withstand the test of time and cultural evolution with remarkable durability. It is also important to understand that "the canon" is divisible into subcategories based on genre, media, geographical location, etc. A work of art that is undeniably canonic in one subcategory may be omitted or considered questionably canonic in another subcategory. When we attempt to identify the greatest painting in the UK (which, if you remember, must be held in the collection of a public institution), we are ignoring a significant portion of the art history canon that includes sculpture, works on paper, new media, etc., as well as works in other geographical locations. Thus, a work such as Sir Henry Raeburn's Reverend Robert Walker Skating on Duddingston's Loch is able to make the list because it is considered a canonic work within the history of British art, but would surely be omitted from a list that examines a broader portion of the canon.
In other words, we must examine the greatness of art not solely though our eyes as we see the works today, but we must understand them in terms of their historical significance as well. Art should be examined, understood and appreciated for several reasons using various criteria for judging, but personal taste should be left out of the equation. The canon is built on an understanding of a long history of art and to obliterate it in one fell swoop by attempting to identify the "most overrated" or even "the greatest" painting is just plain absurd.
posted by Corey Wyckoff at 12:26 PM
2 Comments:
I have to agree with the Rothko haters; I can't escape the feeling that Rothko was conning us.
As for the role of taste in art appreciation, see Frank Sibley's "Aesthetic Judgment". It's been awhile since I read this essay, but seem to recall not agreeing with parts of it.
By the way, you should turn on the word verification function for comments so you don't get comment spam.
Post a Comment
<< Home