The theory of Art is an exhausting subject. The more you learn the more annoyed you become. The adequacy of Socrates adage seems so painfully true at the moment that it makes studying, not just art, everything so trivial. What is Art and is its definition? These questions are as important as questions of human existence. To me, of course, the questions about art are more important that those philosophical ones. Why? Because I’ve always believed Art to be an ultimate exit from Plato’s cave…with which Plato wouldn’t agree. I am comforted by the fact that Aristotle didn’t agree with Plato on the matter of Art.
I remember, although it seems like ages ago , that it took much courage to be able to say in the company of noble and experienced art historians – my teachers, some of them my mentors, to whom Baroque is the golden time of Art, that “the virtuosity of Baroque forms means nothing if it glorifies marble.” And later: “can we ‘verbalise’ Infinity through complicated forms which ‘gesamtkunstwerk-ness’ overwhelms the Eye with formal beauty, yet unveils nothing?” Of course, my statement was terribly fiddly and backed up with 26 pages of , I shall say, Trial which I managed to recapitulate in 130 minutes.
“Miss Anne, your views are seditious and terribly interesting. I believe it’s not due the fact you’re being young.” That was the feedback I got from Professor Wrabec who was my mentor years ago.
Most severe critics of Baroque said that that style is just a savage bastard son of Renaissance. It takes courage and doze of arrogance, as well as eloquence, to put the most majestic examples of Gothic Architecture over brilliant works of Borromini or Guarini; saoring interiors of Gothic churches over fussy Baroque sacral architecture, without falling into argument about personal tastes and style preferences. I have in mind complexity of the XVII century mindset in mind, after all the spirit of an époque has always been seen especially in Art, and through that we see its manifestation to these days.
Nevertheless, there seem to be an interesting confusion, whether this what we worship is art or its formalities? It comes down to rather old and prosaic dilemma, we look but do we see? And, is there anything to see except, like I already said, virtuosity. I am used to calling it “visual seduction” – an innocent and not trained eye bombarded with sophisticated, hmm, recherché impulses – forms that leave no place for the child’s question “why”. If we fall in love with what we look at, we often identify it with beauty, and beauty with Art. And there’s a trap hidden in this reasoning.
Do you know what this trap is?
I had to reconcile myself with the fact that Art has no one ultimate definition, no unchangeable hmm indication which would give some form of objective starting point – some objective datum point. Every époque had its own vision of Art. We do have two definitions of art – normative and relative. The normative being; “the conscious production of things according to certain rules” This definition excludes coincidence and lack of artisanship. It was the definition popular in the Ancient Greece and Rome as well as in Renaissance Europe. You’ve got to keep in mind that to Romans or Greeks – this what we think as Art was called “techne” and was neither noble nor “high”, art was not one of so called intellectual disciplines. In Renaissance the standard of workmanship determined if something was called “good”, but even then, classifying something as art…was a rather problematic issue.
The relative definition of Art, which is the child of the end of XIX century and has been popular to this day, says that Art is everything what is claimed or said to be art. And here you’ve got a total Licentia Poetica – from Art being self-expression through emotional boasting, through destruction to live performance, messing in photoshop, creating personas et cetera.
People look at things and call everything that’s pretty, shocking or moving – Art. Courbet was right! I know now; very few people understand Art, they do understand images though, naively taking one for the other. If you become sentimental about Art, you’re no longer an art historian; you become a lover. Believe me when I say that Art is dangerous. If you don’t see a medium in Art, you’re in danger. Understanding Art can only be done through reconciliation reason with heart. It is not as impossible task as it may seem.
But then again, do we need to understand Art? I suppose not. It matters only to us – art historians. Hah. I’ll drink for that.
