Ania Grient

I just came to a rather amusing conclusion…that I either I go back to my old habit of writing about art with this sarcastically sharp fang…or I’ll bore myself to death –and kill all of you my potential readers -writing in this [quasi]academic manner.

I can’t sleep.  Freezing and melancholic, I can’t stop listening to Lisa Gerrard’s “The Sea Whisperer”. Her voice and music is so beautiful, sad and at the same time comforting. I know that in my current psychological condition I should not be listening to her music.  But.  But my previous attempts of forcing myself to enjoy more cheerful or energetic  musical pieces just fell through. I heard the sounds but at the same time I was deaf to them.

If I could add a visual presentation of this particular piece and my longing of a peace of mind… it would be Arnold Bocklin’s “Villa by the Sea” or “The Island of the Dead”.

Villa by the Sea by Arnold Bocklin

The Island of the Dead by Arnold Bocklin

These places appear in my dreams often…

Gods, I should take some rest. There’s a comfort in sleep which I had not known before. When You fall asleep, your mind switch off. There’s some consolation in that, yes..

Zjawiskiem niezwykle interesującym i zabawnym jednocześnie jest fakt, że „Rzecz Pospolita Artystyczna” dumnie zwana „ Polską Sztuką Współczesną” pogrywa sobie nie tylko z widzem ale i z samym artystą, zmuszając tego pierwszego do zrozumienia konceptu czyli – używając języka „przeciętnego zjadacza sztuki” – sensu, znaczenia , innymi słowy… „o co tu chodzi”, kryjącego się za przedmiotem, obrazem, instalacją umieszczoną w „Domu Sztuki”.  Zaś tego drugiego – znaczy artystę -  do odnalezienia kontekstu dla swojego „ajdija” czyli „konceptu”.  Owe poszukiwania są niezbędne, ponieważ Sztuka Współczesna, a przynajmniej jej większa część, bez kontekstu nie istnieje…

W tym właśnie miejscu, zdaję sobie sprawę, że jestem w Galerii BWA ze wzrokiem utkwionym w posadzce, na której znajdują się jakieś napisy. Patrzę przed siebie, na szklanych drzwiach i oknach także wymalowano znaki i litery przypominające  lingwistyczne  „wrzuty” lub „wlepy” (obecnie  zwane „muralami”) Nie staram się ich odczytać. Kupuję katalog, do którego młoda dama z uśmiechem dodaje białą torbę z grubego płótna z logiem wystawy. Jako student Historii Sztuki nie płacę za bilet. Wchodzę.

…I widzę: Obrazy ruchome i zastygłe, niby pozbawione ram a jednak jak najbardziej w tych ramach tkwiące. Niezwykłe, wręcz eteryczne i efemeryczne projekcje wideo Nieswoje ciało Anny Wybierały  zostały umieszczone w przestrzeni pogrążonej w mroku. Ciemność potęguje uczucie intymności i ciszy, a zastygnięte w ruchu kobiece sylwetki wyglądają niczym zjawy, zasysające w sobie światło. Muszę przyznać, że przepełniło mnie uczucie błogości a także niezwykłości, gdy tak patrzyłam na owe istoty jakby były z innego świata. Potem otwieram katalog i czytam, że artystka inspirowała się barokowym, rokokowym i wiktoriańskim malarstwem, więc próbuje odnaleźć owe analogie, choćby nawet dalekie, a nie mogąc, wzruszam ramionami i przechodzę dalej. Ciekawa jest propozycja Kordiana Lewandowskiego o nieznośnie długim tytule, który zaprezentował nam serię tzw. digital painting w oryginalnych ramach czyli na ekranie LCD przedstawiającą miedzy innymi popularne w kulturze internetowej webcam shots stylizowane na obrazy. Kto poszedł na wystawę z nadzieją zobaczyć malarstwo tradycyjne, mógł podziwiać propozycje Pawła Dunala. Jego obrazy to mistrzostwo techniki powiązane z frywolnością obranego przez siebie tematu, wizje dużego chłopca, zabawne a przy tym zachwycające malarskim detalem.

Heidegger , 8’27” Katarzyny Skupny to przykład manifestacji Feminizmu w świecie podobno wciąż patriarchalnym. O tym, że jej projekcja wideo ma wymowę feministyczną, widać już na pierwszych kadrach filmu, jednakże aby naprawdę zrozumieć, co artystka miała na myśli, należy zagłębić się w literaturę katalogu, tematykę gender i filozofię. Szczerze powiedziawszy  temat „kobiety uwięzionej w okowach patriarchalnej kultury” jest stary i wyeksploatowany do granic artystycznej możliwości. A kadry przedstawiające malowanie i zdzieranie lakieru z paznokci – jako wyraz niemego i tragicznego sprzeciwu wydają mi się infantylne i męczące. Meczące wydaje się też pewna nachalna obecność języka angielskiego w pracach artystów, jak w przypadku Marcina Kuligowskiego. Jasne jest, że artysta inspirował się ogólnie pojętą współczesną ikonografią amerykańskiej pop-kultury, jednakże  mnie osobiście ciekawi owa zasadność angielszczyzny w tytułach zarówno jego prac jak i Skupny.

Bardzo żałuję, że nie jestem zwykłym widzem, nie obarczonym toną wiedzy z zakresu sztuki, która niejako wymusza na mnie zupełnie inny ogląd wszystkich tych zjawisk, które składają się na to, co nazywamy Sztuką Współczesną. Historykowi Sztuki nie przystoi bowiem powiedzieć, że coś się nie podoba – no chyba, że podeprze się to solidnym kilku- lub kilkudziesięciostronicowym elaboratem, który z racji swej rzecz jasna „akademickości” byłby niestrawny dla każdego czytelnika z poza wąskiego koła ludzi i instytucji zajmujących się badaniem i pisaniem o sztuce. O tym, że sztukę robią artyści, a doświadczać jej mogą ludzie z „jako-tako” wyrobioną wrażliwością artystyczna i estetyczną, wiedzą wszyscy. Innymi słowy, nie każdy może być artystą  jak również nie każdy jest stworzony do rozumienia/odczuwania dzieła sztuki. Jednakże, w ostatnich latach nie mogę oprzeć się wrażeniu, że artyści tworzą głównie dla samych siebie, dla krytyków i historyków sztuki, a ci z kolei piszą o tym ksiązki, które czytają zarówno ci pierwsi jak i drudzy, oraz studenci. Jest rzeczą niemodną a wręcz intelektualnym faux pas, przyznać się, ze Sztuki Współczesnej się nie lubi i nie ma się potrzeby jej rozumienia. Czuję się niejako rozdarta między patrzeniem na owe prace jako historyk sztuki i jako przeciętny widz.  Miło jest więc pójść na wystawę i zobaczyć Malarstwo, nie ważne czy w drewnianych ramach czy też to, na ekranach LCD.  Obrazy ruchome i zastygłe – obiecujące. Wychodzę z BWA mimo wszystko z nadzieją…

It was years ago when I dwelled in the world of art of 16th and 17th century Nederlanden painting. It will sound strange, but it’s like witchcraft to me. And now I feel as a wanderer again… Its main purpose was focus on moral education, mostly because it’d been heavily rooted in the tradition of devocio moderna of XIVth and XVth century – the world as the mirror of God’s world full of religious themes and moral lessons, but the same time …the same world was perceived as a vain and empty and illusionary, deceiving place, a theatre stage, dust and smoke, just a dream, just a moment, a short lying picture…

Franciscus Gysbrechts - Vanitas (2d half of the 17th century, Oil on canvas, 115 x 134 cm)

So, it was ethics over aesthetics. Always. It was truly unimportant whether this or that work of art had any sensual effect on a viewer. Truly, painting had no place in Luther’s but especially in Calvin’s concept of world if it had no moral message.
And yet, in this protestant world, where as I said aesthetic aspect of art seemed to have no value, most astonishing pieces of artworks were created – blicks of light, composition, perfection of detail…all of those and more could make you feel dizzy. You – being the man of XXIst century art freak…

Exilium Melancholiae, painting by Bartolomeus Hopfer

But it was not technique or beauty of lines and colours that 16th-17th century people saw, it’s what modern art admirers see nowadays whereas people of those past times, saw and understood the art in verbal way. Art did not exist for art, it existed for God, it was made to serve God. It transmitted transcendental world through the mirror-art into our world. Verbum (and Verbum Dei) was the meritum of Art. Work of art was not seen but read.

I’ve always considered myself to be a simple person. And by “simple” I mean “not complicated”. I’ve never felt a need to explain myself or prove anything to anyone, except to those few people whom my selfish self cherished (and still does) so much, and sometimes desired to own even. I know, terrible. But that’s the truth. I’ll never tell you that I want to “own” you. Of course, I usually end up hurting deeply those I keep close to myself, then again, it’s common with all people, so maybe it should not bother me that much. Yet it does.

This fondness of simplicity, in art, in life, in reason, in everything… I’ll try to explain. It probably has a lot to do with my outlook on life which can be pretty much explained by a few rather common words: simplicity is elegance. If your mind is as open as you‘re probably declaring just now in this very moment as you’re reading these lines, you can apply my reasoning to every aspect of human life. It takes the whole human life – as they say – a full life circle to understand that simplicity is peacefulness and quietness and beauty. I realised it a long time ago, but it does not mean anything at this point. It only means, I recognise the Beauty. What is simplicity? It’s ability to see order in chaos or simple forms in most complex ones. This order of which I am talking about is neither control or rules, it’s not categories either. It’s sense and clarity, simple as that. What is wisdom if not the ability to explain most difficult matters in clear and simple words? I hope I’ll be able to do that one day…

Sometimes I feel like Orlando whom Queen Elizabeth said “do not fade, do not get wither”. And she/he didn’t grow old. But it wasn’t the Virgin Queen who said those words to me. It was someone else… You might think me mad but I won’t grow old until I become old and then, die. Oh no, I won’t live like Orlando three hundreds years and change my sex somewhere in the middle. I am saying that I’ll probably grow old within a few days or months someday and die. Then again, someone said to me once “you really never know”. Haha! (Yes, that was precious….moment of blissful drunkenness when everything is clear. You truly feel as if you understood the universe.) True, I don’t. Maybe my unbreakable Will turns me into one of those strange things of Nature. My dream is not immortality though, far from it. <i>Powidok Aukasól Afterimage Nachbild Parhélie Black Body Lasur Prisma Erdschein Alizarin Rose Madder I am</i>

Pierre-August Vafflard "Young holding his dead daughter in arms" 1804

This painting is one of my art “loves”. You can also see a book example of the Romantic ones – both in form and theme. The theme – tells a real story about the English poet named Edward Young struggling with the body of his dead daughter. She being the protestant was deined the burial in the Catholic cemetary… The form – the cold light of the moon, the night, the unrest sky, the haunted face of Young and finally the marble body of his beloved daughter…

There’s no one ultimate definition of art, especially in our times. And here I’d like to challenge all those people for whom Art is Art because it’s Art. It makes no sense, doesn’t it? Really? Let’s see. Claiming that art is all about emotion and makes artist an artist because the object he produced, he – the artist called “work of art” is naïve and shows lack of knowledge. It’s result of XIX century aesthetic philosophy. It’s understandable if it’s said by an average Joe passing the gallery, but not by someone who claims they studied art or history of art, or generally someone whose sense of aesthetics is above  the average. Of course,  one does not has to study art or history of art to appreciate good art or scold and criticise  “bad art”.  But it seems, in our culture, many people lack courage and balls (both critics, art historians and art viewers) to publically say that something is just bad when it’s bad.  Where does it come from? They don’t won’t make fools of themselves that they don’t understand this “art”? They don’t want to be against the élite  that dictates trends and promoted this or that artist to the position of  not only a star but a golden eggs giving duck? Probably all of these plus more.

THE HISTORY IN THREE PARAGRAPHS, BECAUSE SADISM OF ART-HISTORIANS HAS NO BOUNDARIES

Now, a little bit of history…  it’s not really strange that definitions of art and artworks are intertwined. It’s rather common knowledge and most people agree with it that art is not for everybody, there are people who are completely immune to either aesthetic or intellectual aspects of  it. Claiming that something is art only if it awakes any sort of emotions or is created from emotions, or when it’s done according to certain technical and aesthetic rules (different in every époque) are incomplete. It’s like putting Easter above Christmas. I may not find something appealing to my personal aesthetic taste but I acknowledge and appreciate its form of aesthetism as well as concept. But to be able to do it, one needs basic knowledge of all those artistic processes and artistic doctrines formed themselves through the century. And this is what The History of Art is, it’s the map of all those artistic doctrines and processes that had its place through the centuries with its objects, “afterimages” and artists. The History of Art basically teaches  about how people perceived Beauty and Ugliness and their roles, what found aesthetically appealing and when it was intellectual or religious, why they created “objects” (which hardly ever had any useful purposes) and why they gave an intellectual or spiritual value to them.  It’s the history, the timeline of the human creative activity and its artefacts. Finally, through the past understanding of Art, and according to the theory of Hegel,  the Art of the History helps to notice certain  artistic culture patterns that can be found in our modern culture. And finally though Hegel’s theory we can , more or less, talk about the “evolution” of Art which wouldn’t have its place because going through the history of Art and its doctrines, “evolution” would be a little too far-fetched observation when we have in mind al those side styles which seemed to develop separately from the mainstream or styles to were continued. (Hmm, in fact the term “continuation” is much more fitting)

Many people tried to “catch” Art and verbalise its definition through either intuition or logic.  This intuitive approach represents Schopenhauer  when he says that Art is the house of contemplation and contemplation is the domain of Art, but it must be noted that he specifically emphasised both the intellectual and sensual experience of Art, Experience or maybe rather pursuit of understanding Art.  B. Croche stands that Art is all about intuition and artist’s tools are expression and emotions as the visual  transfiguration of inner illumination, truth and artist’s vision. There was also J. Conrad for whom Art was the grand Eye and Ear of the World, its purpose is to see and hear, Art should be a reminder, the mirror… and last but not least, the conscience of the world. The modern “sensing” of Art, so to speak, is representing by H. Read form whom the aesthetic experience which is mainly the basis for Art is built on forms and harmonies through selections and searching for an order, escape from chaos, and forms that are pleasing to an eye. According to him Art itself is abstract and sort of condensation,  and Artist is a synthesiser. Artists, while synthesising forms, must choose and select. So, Art discards lesser and chooses better values. <u>And finally, to use Tatarkiewicz’s definition of Art, we could say that Art is the conscious creative human activity and artwork would be the conscious product of man, where most important word would be “conscious”!!!!</u>

In the Ancient Greek and Rome as well as in the Middle Ages, Art was the ability/craft to produce (usually) material objects according to the certain rules and technique ( here you’ve got the latin noun “ars”) but it must be noted that Art was not understood the way we understand this phenomenon now! Art basically was seen as good craft and artist was an artisan! Sculpture as well as Painting were not de facto Art but “physical work” and not the domain of Intellect.  This attitude changed in Renaissance where theoretic works of  artists such as Leonardo and later Alberti basically changed the status of not only Art, by “marrying” it with Poetry, Science and Philosophy,  but Artist as well and changed him from a mere artisan into “a priest of art” and a noble man.  The Model of Ideal Beauty created using math and geometry was very popular in the Ancient times, which had the strong influence of the later Renaissance and Baroque perception of Art, gave birth to the certain canon of female beauty (Venus from Milo for instance) which aftermath is still present in our times, to which we’re enslaved. The History of Art shows that there were  exceptions from this rule such as Gothic Madonnas. This canon was very admired in XVIII century  but dropped later in XIX, it was understood that Beauty does not only lie in the Classic Aesthetic Canon. It was then when the idea of aesthetic of Ugliness came to the spotlight, although it was also noticed earlier (works of Hieronymus Bosch for instance). It could be said that, more or less, Art oscillated between emulating Nature and Reality or being the Mirror of these two.

THE PROBLEMS WITH THE MODERN DEFINITION OF ART AND ARTIST.

The radical changes in views on Art had their place in the first decade of XXth century, when the idea that Art is in fact Form itself (free form meaning or purpose, in other words, immanent) – shape (the Idea of Pure Form) started to haunt artists minds. It was no longer important what artwork presented but how it presented as well as it wasn’t important how it was done but what was done. It was the birth of Cubism and later Dadaism, etc. Artists rejected mimetism for totalimagining and creation of abstract things, it can be clearly noticed in works of Modrian, Kandinsky or Malewicz. Art became totally subjective and artist could stylise and manipulate reality to show his own vision of the world or just himself. His main goal became not to express emotions but in fact trigger them by shock or scandal (Artists as a scandalist), and it became also the definition of Art.

Dorota Nieznalska: "Passion", 2002, Gdansk, Progress Gallery.

Eugeniusz Get-Stankiewicz: "Do it yourself", 1986, Wroclaw National Museum.

Another noticeable change in the perception of Art in XXth century was the notion that Good Art should be innovative as well as Art is something that carries Originality within. There’s this human thing called “human individuality” hence each artist wants to be perceived as the creator of new avant-garde, and this is how the cult of artist was born. Paradoxically,  this everlasting chase and search for originality and innovation become boring and  utterly unoriginal in the end.

Studying Modern Art, we can’t determine no more without feeling exhausted what and what’s not work of art. We live in the times where Art subverted itself many times with sometimes good and sometimes bad aftermath. Art mocks Art. Art also turned reality into art and art into reality. We no longer, and maybe don’t want to,  know when it’s art and when it’s just life. The language of symbols used by Art got terribly simplified to the role of mere pictograms and ready-made objects. Modern Art devalued object itself and glorified the very intellectual or emotional (read: creative) process which produced the object. Some art historians as well art lovers don’t consider Modern Art art at all, and it’s an incorrect attitude, so to speak. The first step to understand Modern Art is to stop looking at it or judging it through the past centuries sense of aesthetics and technique standards. It’s hard, because most of universities forcefully put this “glasses of the past” on students’s noses which results in a complete misunderstanding of all sorts of modern artistic attempts that happen around. Needless to say, that our society grew on the notion that all what’s beautiful, eye-pleasing or awakes certain emotions  and put us in awe, is art. Well, I could be cynical and say that looking at cute little puppies puts us in “awe” too.

Modern Art developed its own language which is different to the one from the past, and both art historians and art lovers must learn it if they want to both appreciate art as well be able to distinguish art from nonentity, so to speak. It does not mean of course, that everything produced now is art. It isn’t , like not everything in the past got the status of art piece. This what we lack here now is the code, the language. The revolution that had begun with Duchamp’s Fountain basically dethroned basic artist’s tools such as brushes and paints, canvas, stone or architectural modules. Duchamp’s  revolution allowed artists to use any medium they fancied, beginning with so called “ready made objects”,  through performances to modern visual media such as video or sound… to convey their artistic message. Stll though the message -  and its clarity – expressed in/through the object, also known as “concept” (different though to Renaissance “concetto”), was the gist of it all, the core. If there was no “core”, the object was not art but  just a lavatory seat.  Duchamp opened the door for brilliant ideas (such as Visual Poetry, Concrete Poetry, all First Avangarde styles) but also let all cheap ones in (such As “art works of one season” all those things which main purpose was to rise sensationalism and promote the man rather that its  artist). The question now is, how to distinguish potential, an artist from a hmm, let me use an “economic” term for a new rich,  from an upstart parvenu?

If I were a cynic I’d say, let them draw an academic nude and scenery and lets  see if they can do it. I’ve got much more respect for an artist, who having some sort of solid craft background, <b>consciously</b> choose his/her artistic path rather than someone who feeds on the brilliance of others, or just this modern hunger for sensationalism. Having said that, I also have more respect for an artist who is simply honest with what they do and don’t attach some kind of fake ideology to it without which their art won’t defend itself. And we’ve got plenty of artists of this kind.

The normative definition of art/artwork states that two things determine whether something is considered work of art; their artistic and aesthetic values; The artistic values would be the mastery of craft and technique, also, so called skills (also known as “gift” or “talent”) and  the element of originality/innovation; whether artist copy styles or add some new element to it. The aesthetic values are those of the subjective nature (the relative/subjective definition of art aka “this is art because I, Artist, made it”), if we like the thing or if we don’t. About whether artwork is beautiful or not, anyone can stand, because each one of us have their own perception of what is aesthetically appealing. But if you want to judge the art work  for its artistic values, you’ve got to have the knowledge about it, simple as that. You don’t need to be in some mysterious circles, no grey eminences autocratically proclaim if this or that is art, it’s knowledge and study. It’s same with any discipline and profession.

MODERN ART IS RELIGION AND ARTIST THE MODERN PROMETHEUS OR FALSE PROPHETTHE FALSE NOTION THAT ART/IST IS SACRED AND UNTOUCHABLE  SWEET-DAMNED-HEART

Art is not Sacred Cow and is subjected to criticism, judgement and revising like any other discipline from the group of sciences known proudly as the Human Arts.

The boundaries (not meant in the sense if there’s boundaries of idea or creativity though) of Art in its theoretical sense determine and can give the answer to question what is and what isn’t Art. This question is subjected to be answered by the competent entourage. Another question that arises would be who is competent enough to judge what could be considered work of art while something else would be rejected. The pursuit for an answer is the job for those for whom Art is the subject of study or passion, simple as that; it would be art historians, artists, art critics, marchands, art admires and last but not least, the public opinion as well as Time – the most sever and inevitable critic of all! There’s truth in the saying that if work of art survives the trial of Time, by it I mean, it defends itself better than the opinions of the public or fashion, it gains the status of art-piece and sometimes becomes a cultural icon. If we however state that no one is to judge or determine whether this or that is work of art, and no one but artist can call an object artwork, then we give art the status of religion and artist become an untouchable priest! And this borders with hypocrisy because while Art and Artist reserve the right for themselves to explore and subject all aspects of the human life (such us religion, religious iconography etc) – with no compromise or respect in the name of truth and all those beautiful values – to this “Artistic Judgement” and filter it through the Art’s Eye,  it denies the viewers or critics the same right to criticise Art or its creation. In other words, it’s right for Artists to  have people or the world reflect in their Art mirror, sometimes mocking the reflection, but Art-ist won’t dare to look at their own reflection in the mirror which are the public or art critics. So, yes, I am not afraid to say aloud that this or that is “shit”. I am entitled to it, both as a mere art admirer AND as an art-historian.  Someone has to have the guts to say “The emperor is naked”  when he clearly is!

Nie wiem czym jest miłość. Przypuszczam, że jest piękna i zatrważająca zarazem. Ponieważ nie wiem, czym jest to uczucie, w zrozumieniu doświadczeń innych oraz moich własnych odczuć, posługuje się intuicją. To zabawne, że ludzie biorą moją intuicję za przejaw osobistych doświadczeń, chociaż ja, zawsze powtarzam, “nie wiem czym jest miłość czy zakochanie”.

To ciagłe wrażenie/uczucie “braku” pewnie zamieni mnie w zgorzkniałą starą kobietę..albo doprowadzi do szaleństwa. Chyba wolę tę drugą opcję.

Kiedyś napisałam coś zabawnego;

Virtual Love

You underline my name. I strike through yours in return.

Nie pamiętam kiedy to napisałam. W każdym razie tak w kilku słowach można streścić ten fenomen. Jest w tym cynizm i drwina, ale z drugiej strony jakiś masochizm….ale głebsza interpretacja przynależy już do mojej sfery prywatnej…

I thought I’d write here in my native tongue, but it’s hard. Why? My English is not perfect, it’s full of flaws, but it’s a perfect mask of safety to me. Yes, I do hide behind this English language – my alter ego, not much different from the real me though.

I’ll keep this place for myself. People will find me in time or I’ll let myself be found. For now though, I’ll bath in this illusionary idea of a complete anonymity within this digital world.

It is said that first words of the prologue as well as the title determine whether reader reads the story or not.  My story is many. It’s like kaleidoscope in a way, as you move it, the patterns and colours change. My story is ever form changing. But no, I don’t want it to be chaotic, no.