Category: Art History

While art history gives insight into how artists created their work, it is a skewed impression of art history. Many people who were keeping records of art never included women artists into their records. Women were challenged by the record-keeping of art, but also had difficulty in finding training, selling their artwork, and gaining recognition for their skills. Despite the challenges, some women still became prominent in art history with their artistic creativity and ability to commission artwork. Lavinia Fontana, Isabella d’Este, and Artemisia Gentileschi were a few of the women who made an impact on art history. Having to find ways to gain knowledge, make their own status through the gender bias, and find ways to pioneer new traditions of art, these women brought a different perspective of art into history. Through the ability to be trusted by woman patrons, the subject matter of their artwork, and patronage of art in a time where men dominated art history, these women were able to make a difference by diversifying the tradition of art.

Overcoming these obstacles, Lavinia Fontana is regarded as the first professional female artist and was able to achieve noteworthy success. Although unable to study the male nude in real life and taught to paint by her father, her “paintings constitute the largest surviving body of work by any woman artist before 1700 (Gardner 536)”. She was able to create demand for her work by exploiting her interiority of female artistry of the time. Using her status, Lavinia was able to work with female patrons who were comfortable working with a woman that they could relate to.

Historically significant, Lavinia Fontana can also show that her gender was a positive advantage for a her. As a woman painter she was able to support her family through eleven pregnancies with her husband as her assistant. Her success was about making a good public image of herself as well as showcasing her skill and innovation of her artwork. In her self-portrait, Self-Portrait with a Maidservant, Keyboard, Easel, and Cassone, she shows herself beautifully dressed with a maidservant in the background. This painting shows the riches that she had and what she could offer to her husband through her artwork and that “her artwork could stand in lieu of a cash dowry (Symko, Cinquecento Italy 14:10-14:15).” Being able to support her family through her artwork, Lavinia Fontana was comparable to her big named male counterparts of the time period and was able to gain international fame.

Woman were pushing the boundaries of what they were allowed to do as artists as well as patrons. This is important in art history because the patron often determined an artworks most important features and characteristics (Symko, Cinquecento Italy 2:40-2:55). In a world dominated by male patrons, thousands of images of virgin women were often pictured in an erotic, idealized way. Isabella d’Este was one of the few woman patrons who was able to commission her artwork from big name artists. Not many women were able to commission artwork like Isabella could due to money and power relations between man and wife and the women who were able to be artistic patrons usually commissioned funerary artworks in memory of their husbands. For that reason, Isabella d’Este became a very important patron. As one of the most powerful women of the Renaissance era, she was able to commission images that were from a woman’s perspective in a time when women were a minority in the art collecting industry.

Isabella d’Este was very particular about the artwork she commissioned and had an “insistence on control over the diverse series of works she paid for (Gardner,536),” because the artwork had to be appropriate for a woman of her high rank. Being able to patron skilled artists of the time, Isabella had Titian paint a portrait of her. This portrait, Isabella d’Este, is significant because at sixty years old, Isabella had Titian paint her as a very young woman. With this portrait of a young Isabella with a beautiful headdress, fur pelt, and intricately designed clothing, we can see the difference of how wealthy woman of the time period versus men wanted to portray themselves. Males wanted and commissioned portraits that showed their wisdom and military or political power; whereas, women wanted portraits that showed their beauty, showing the difference between what was important to each gender.

The patronage of women also led to strong female artists emerging in the art scene. The most renowned woman painter in the 17th century was Artemisia Gentileschi. Seen as one of the most skilled painters of her time, she had a difficult time of forging a career as an artist. She believed that male patrons treated her differently because of her gender, which was documented in a written letter to one of her patrons, “you think me pitiful, because a woman’s name raises doubts until her work is seen (Gardner 596).” Despite this, her paintings were significant not just in their subject matter, but also in the innovative ways she chose to create her artwork.

Her most powerful works focused on females with one of her prominent themes being of heroic women, rather than traditional heroic men. In Artemisia Genileschi’s self-portrait painting, Self-Portrait as the Allegory of Painting, she is seen actively engaged in the painting of herself. This shows more than just an artist at work, “but a portrait of Gentileschi as Painting herself (Gardner 597).” She had to set up two mirrors to paint herself from this angle, which was a break from tradition of almost all Renaissance and Baroque self-portraits. This self-portrait was considered a “a highly original break from tradition and an assertion of her supreme skill in a field dominated by men (Gardner 597).”

Females in art history aren’t documented well; however, some still managed to make a name for themselves. These women as patrons and artists “contributed to the careers of various artists and the development of art in general (Gardner 563).” Having female artists and female patrons being able create and collect artwork shows us what was important to women from a woman’s point of view. From their subject matter to their supreme skill and break from tradition, Lavinia Fontana, Isabella d’Este, and Artemisia Gentileschi made a huge difference in the art community and art history as we know it today. Having to be innovative in overcoming their lack of education and inability to study with male counterparts, they used their female inferiority to establish a market for themselves and by pushing past artwork of the day and creating something groundbreaking and new they were able to pave the way for more women to have an impact on history

Revolutions begin with a collective shift in public perception. “The 1960s was a decade of rapid change” (Watson, 2019). This period set out to re-establish the founding pillars and perspectives of contemporary society, which became the catalyst for social change. This shift in societal attitude inspired the women’s liberation movement, which was a collective protest that embodied notions of equality, and which was most active during the late 1960s and 1970s. A pivotal artist responding to social inequalities at this time was Judy Chicago and her installation ‘The Dinner Party’ (1974). Chicago used art to challenge traditional views of women’s domesticity, bringing to light the value of women’s narrative in history, in order to combat gender discrimination. In this essay, I will be looking at how art can be used to make a difference in the world by analyzing the collective group of feminist artists Guerrilla Girls, and how they challenge the absence of women in the global canon by embarking on a journey to overthrow male domination in historical and cultural documentation.

Guerrilla Girls harness the power of mass media by using wit and irony to point a critical finger at the double standards prevalent in the art world. By using facts as a technique to expose reality, it is an invitation to the viewer to understand the oppression that women have faced, allowing the viewers to discover the inaccuracies of the situation. Their work, ‘Do Women Have to Be Naked to Get into the Met. Museum?’ (1989) is an example of how they confront the lack of gender diversity in art galleries. The poster has achieved iconic status for its bold, eye-catching graphic design, which includes a reproduction of the female nude figure originally from Jean Ingres’s painting ‘La Grande Odalisque’ (1814). “The machinery of perspective by incongruity and the comic frame, then, engenders a form of social criticism that seeks to correct the inadequacies of the present social order through demystification rather than revolution” (Burke, 1984). The poster questions the role of art and how it can be used to protest their exclusion from the institutional art world by expressing clearly the objectification of women’s bodies and how they have become marginalized in society. This artwork was able to make a difference in the world by demanding equal female representation because of the authority of public scrutiny, which imposes pressure on organizations to actively change their attitudes towards sexism.

Not only do they make a difference through the technique of advertisement internationally, but also members of the group disguise themselves as gorillas in public and take on the names of famous female artists to retain their anonymity. “Anonymity keeps attention focused on issues rather than individuals” (Demo, 2010). This confidentiality prevents public attention on specific individuals, but instead is a representation of a larger group, creating empowerment through a community. This concept of anonymity gives marginalized minorities a voice and serves as a catalyst for social change. By making the artwork both accessible and engaging for the general public, it disrupts the hierarchical social power and can begin to question how art can be used as a platform to expel prejudice and form a new dialogue about the feminine experience. However, by selling work to institutional galleries, are they just adhering to the corruption of the establishments they are critiquing? After consistently challenging forms of art galleries’ discrimination, is it hypocrisy to sell art as an instrument of capitalist investment? The ethos of the group, on the other hand, is not one of greed and corruption. Having their posters to be displayed in a gallery space is a clear positive step in the right direction, due to the approval of the art and thus the acceptance of changing how the institution will be operated by creating a space for female-centered representation. “Guerrilla Girls operate on a different economic paradigm of making small exchanges – books, posters, talks, workshops – with many individuals” (Bollen, 2012), which demonstrates that the main aim is to reach a wide general public audience, to diminish the patriarchal society.

In conclusion, Guerrilla Girls used unorthodox tactics that were instrumental in allowing the viewer to understand the oppression that women have faced by exploiting mass media and demystifying the factuality of the institutions. It demonstrated how important feminist art and ideologies are in terms of fighting for equality and having a voice. As the group gained more authority, they also gradually widened their focus, tackling issues of racial discrimination in the art world and also made more direct, politicized interventions. The importance of art in the context of making a difference in the world is that they have made a platform that allows them to express the opinions of marginalized groups, which previously would have been ignored, therefore catalyzing positive societal change.

Having read and annotated the following article, The Trouble with (the Term) Art, by Carolyn Dean it is safe to say that the main idea of this essay is to address how the term art is not being used when describing object that date back centuries. This mostly has to do with Europeans describing their art as art and non- western artifacts as “primitive” Everything being unearthed is not being considered “art”. They are using a term to exclude these unique art forms from the more typical art pieces hanging up in museums such as paintings, and portraits. The cultural artifacts are often times considered “primitive art”, this term is used frequently in Dean’s essay. They use the word primitive in front of the word art instead of just calling it, plain and simply what it is. Art! Deans article is essentially trying to reason with simply being art, not adding labels. Art can’t be defined by historians or art theorists.

The Trouble with (the term) Art has a lot of references to bring the authors opinions and thoughts to light. She uses sources for and against her claim. This strengthens her own reasoning and makes her audience more trustworthy of her ability, she does not come across as biased because of this. At the very end of the article, in small print, is a small portion of information about the writer. This could have you question her own biases. Dean is a professor at the University of California. As a professor, Dean teaches History of Art, as well as, Visual Culture. Though Dean is very knowledge on this topic her response and research could be biased because she knows this topic so well. She specializes in Incan visual arts. In this article the author often also includes resources that favor their artifacts being expressed as visual arts. Such as in her reflection of the Ancient Civilization of Art History article by J. Alden Mason. Mason assessed that “stone sculptures… [were missing] from Inca visual culture” (Ancient Civilizations, Mason).

This article to myself was confusing. It did not get much better looking at it critically. It was difficult it tells at first what the article was about, what was being argued. I thought at first it was about how everything is just considered art, and some things are more cultural or religious pieces. It was not until the second paragraph on page 27 that it became clear that not everything has been considered art, even though it should because art cannot be defined or have a clear-cut standard. Dean gives a real-life experience, being an Art History professor, it is her job to tell identify to students “what is art”. She shows her lectures other figures and spiritual items, of which have not always been recognized as an artform. “the values of modern art have led to a more sympathetic and objective approach to exotic arts…” (Style, Shapiro). Having read the conclusion to this article it really wrapped up everything. I do thing this article was relevant to what we have been learning in class. I also feel like the resources used in this article are accurate and relevant.

Carolyn Dean states a claim that essentially is saying the terminology we use to describe art is wrong. All art is art, there doesn’t have to be non-western art vs western art. Dean appears to believe that this “naturalization of the culturally and historically bound concept of art through… modern art history’s notions” (Dean, 32) Dean aims for the discipline in naming something art or not to be diminished.

To conclude an analysis of Carolyn Dean’s the Trouble with (the term) Art must acknowledge that Dean went back and took reviews and recommendations from her audience. Not having been able to read or watch this article being presented at conference it cannot be said what the original essay was like or if the contributions and reviews changed the ideal of the core paper. This article effectively argues for the writer’s position on the topic. Dean could possibly me biases, but she does give the audience full discretion. There are aware that she is a professor on the topic. She may be biased, but she also has knowledge of the topic. She carefully found articles that would contribute to the discussion.

Bibliography

1. Dean, Carolyn. “The Trouble with (The Term) Art.” Art Journal, vol. 65, no. 2, 2006, p. 24., doi:10.2307/20068464.
2. J. Alden Mason, The Ancient Civilization of Peru (Baltimore and Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1957), 231.
3. Meyer Shapiro, “Style”, in Preziosi, The Art of Art History, 147

In the reading ‘Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?’ written by Linda Nochlin, the author attempts to explain how the social and cultural biased system has obstructed women from partaking in and succeeding in the art field. She also reflects on the implications of the ‘perennial question’, shown in the main title of this essay, by laying down the historical groundwork for public understanding of male privilege and obscured feminine discrimination. Through her essay, Nochlin challenges future generations of artists and viewers to reevaluate not only the position of female artists on the field but also the viewer’s role.

Nochlin asserted that the discrimination against women in art had its consequences in achieving proficiency and, therefore, greatness. The social and cultural biased system made this possible by labeling women as unequal individuals and normalizing the social norm that women’s sole commitment is to the family. In other words, women were expected to drop their careers and commit themselves to love and marriage. Meanwhile, men were free to pursue their career endeavors. And during Nochlin’s timeline, most men weren’t yet ready to give up those privileges. According to the author, those who have privileges will inevitably hold on tight to the advantages they ensue, no matter how marginal they are. Hence, most men are reluctant to give up the ‘natural’ order of things in which their advantages are greater than women.

This reality, found in the 20th century, took a worse turn in the 19th-18th century. In the 18th century, women weren’t even allowed to have a formal artistic education. Nochlin pointed this out by using an example. During a brief survey of life drawing sessions held in Rembrandt’s studio, it was revealed that the clientele were all-male artists (drawing from a female nude in the 18th century). This was not because women didn’t have the talent nor potential to draw just as well as their male counterparts, but because the social environment didn’t regard women as equal or as socially adequate to take the role of an artist and join an academy. There was no other role for women but a domestic role. Therefore, they also weren’t considered for artist fellowships, awards, or any form of encouragement. Another example of this reality is a photograph taken by Thomas Eakins around 1885, which reveals a female artist holding a life drawing session around a cow, which was the closest nude model that women could practice from without being banned from it.

In the 19th century, life drawing sessions for women were still an issue. Women artists could access live drawing sessions but with a clothed male as a model. The unavailability of a male model in the nude deprived women of the ultimate stage of artistic training. Therefore, according to Nochlin, this directly deprived of the possibility of creating major artworks. In the absence of a human figure to practice from, women restricted themselves to the minor fields of portraiture, genre, landscape, or still life. In this particular social and cultural environment rose the female artist Rosa Bonheur. She is a prominent artist of the 19th century and her work gained notoriety during a time when ‘animal painting’ became a popular field. Moreover, a major change in the social and institutional support for art itself was underway: the rise of the bourgeoisie and the fall of the cultivated aristocracy. This shift caused smaller paintings of everyday objects to become of great interest and high demand. Meanwhile, mythological or religious scenes with human subjects receded from public interest. Consequently, Rosa Bonheur’s naturalism and innate ability to capture an animal subject coincided with the bourgeois taste at the time. She also exhibited an independent and liberty spirit uncharacteristic of a ‘woman’, which immediately earned her the label of ‘tomboy’. At that time, any show of persistence, stubbornness, and vigor would be counted as masculine. This is a very interesting point to dwell on because, from a modern feminist viewpoint, Bonheur was also unapologetically combining her masculine protest with her self-contradictory assertions of ‘basic’ femininity. Meaning that she could dress in perfectly conventional feminine fashion but she had adopted men’s clothes as a comfortable working attire to produce art. In her own words, it was to facilitate work. Her work stands as an impressive achievement to anyone interested in the art of the 19th century. In the 20th century though, this changed considerably. It recognized the importance of model session study in the pedagogy and development of a talented woman beginner.

In the past, to the authors’ knowledge, there is no evidence of artists drawing from the nude model which includes women in any other role but that of the nude model itself. If for women there was no other role in art but to be nude models for male artists, it raises the question regarding the role of the woman viewer. The author opens this discourse by analyzing the female form in art. From a feminine viewer’s standpoint, it is conflicting which role to take when observing an artwork with nude feminine representation. Nochlin hesitated whether to assume the role of the male viewer or the female subject. To Nochlin, taking the role of the male viewer or the female subject doesn’t really feel applicable to the author. The author rejects both views and leaves this discourse open to challenge the public and calls for reflection on the women viewers’ role. She also points out how often they are left in a sort of limbo, oscillating between being the subject and the male viewer, never being the original male viewer from which the work was intended.

To sum up, we have to circle back to the main perennial question: why have there been no great women artists? (or physicists, mathematicians, composers, philosophers, or so few in any field). Thus, the so-called woman question, which is also regarded as the ‘woman problem’, shouldn’t insidiously supply its own answer “that there has been no women artist because women are incapable of greatness”. This would be an unfair answer since the author has incessantly outlined the historical implications of the social and cultural disadvantages of a woman. In this context, women were inherently deprived of encouragement, educational facilities, and rewards, therefore, it is almost incredible that certain women like Rosa Bonheur persevered and sought a profession in the arts. It is worth mentioning though that what most female artists had in common was an artist male relative who gave their daughters the needed encouragement to practice and ponder the possibility to pursue an art career. Nochlin’s discourse opened a door in her time not only to the reinforcement to escape the ‘natural’ woman’s role but to the expansion of the art field in terms of gender equality, in unmeasurable ways. It could be said that it was a group effort from certain strong-willed rebellious women who most probably were insidiously labeled as ‘masculine’ and were frowned upon because of social conventions, to try and steer away from the traditional view. This label has gradually shifted and diluted over time, and the same goes for the public’s understanding of male privilege and feminine discrimination in the art field, which was the author’s most pending concern. Accordingly, the perennial question raised by the author becomes a catalyst of continuous questioning over the ‘natural’ assumption of the woman’s role. Favorably this notion has shifted slowly in the last decade with more supporting and less apprehensive male peers of women’s potential. Thus, if provided with equal grounds socially and culturally, both genders, male and female, can competently and equally succeed. Hence, this catalyst not only provides a link to an awareness of equality in art but to other fields as well.

Introduction

The main topic to be discussed in this synthesis paper will be the Historical, Social, Economic and Political Implications of Art. Through the various given readings, specifically 5 readings related to the topic, the determining of main arguments in each reading by carefully deconstructing the readings and gathering salient information on it. The order of each reading to be discussed will be as follows: Art History and the Global Challenge: A Critical Perspective, Infrastructure of Colonial Modernity, Itinerant Figures, “Total Community Response”: Performing the Avant-garde as a Democratic Gesture in Manila, and Michael Duchamp: “Twisting Memory for the Fun of it” or a Form of Retroactive Interference? – Recalling the Impacts of Leaving Home on the Readymade.

Thesis statement

The thesis statement of this synthesis paper will be focusing on mainly gathering information on implications of art in various categories. Through various arguments gathered in the given articles, the synthesizing of salient information will be done. Through thorough deconstruction of articles, gathered information should be listed as it to not confuse readers.

Examples

Art History and the Global Challenge: A Critical Perspective

Flores (2017) stated that “the challenge of globalization and the “decolonization” of our way of thinking have become a major concern for most art historians.” Through the reading we learned that there is a field of global art history, but as it were in case we re conceptualize the idea of the worldwide and recalibrate the registers of the teaching of art history. Also the work of Hans Belting in terms of writing craftsmanship history, curating contemporary exhibitions, and creating joins over continents has been pivotal. The importance of the Internet has also been mentioned as it can help the facilitation of dissemination of knowledge across the world. A different subject is also formed, although how this subject mediates universities is contingent on the subjectivity. There ought to be more collaborations between colleagues and disciplines to create a more peculiar story of sensible life and not as it were craftsmanship as we know it. An unused hypothetical vernacular ought to too develop, one that’s sharpened within the post-colonial pot, taking freedoms with English and at the same time gambling the untranslatability of certain vocabularies. All these information gathered through the reading can be synthesized that Art History in its entirety is in a difficult spot as we speak, this can be the result of various factors but it doesn’t mean that this can be the end for the field, the answers given by interviewees gives hope that one day the widening ranges of critical perspectives on art history can be a factor that can help the field in not only widening its range to a certain place, but globally instead.

Infrastructures of Colonial Modernity: Public Works in Manila in the late 19th and 20th Century

The article mainly focused on 3 main points or 3 main areas, Colonial Infrastructure and Industrialization under Spain, Building the Infrastructure for American Imperial City in the Tropics and Materials of Colonial Modernity. Tomacruz, (n.d) stated the advent of colonial industrialization in the Philippines can be traced back in 1834 with the abolition of Compaña de Filipinas. The opening of the Philippines to worldwide exchange come about in an incredible request for its agrarian items and handled commodities within the world advertise, requiring the utilization of machineries for massive export production. The Spanish era marked the start of the modern architecture that the Philippines will be using until now. After the Spanish colonization, it was the American’s turn to occupy Manila, during America’s reign, Manila as an unused American colonial city experienced an enormous change to rebuild its urban built environment as a model colonial station. All public works were placed under the country’s engineers. The Philippines then in turn, deployed resources as well to help the city improve. We can say during the American reign, they changed the way architecture works in the Philippines during the 20th century and technology played a huge role in changing the way architecture works, not only in the Philippines but in the rest of the world.

Itinerant Figures: Textual Mobilities in Fiction’s Diasporic Turn

Reyes, M. (2017) stated that diasporas are energetic and unstable in today’s globalizing substances and imaginaries since the sense of put and area by which diasporic encounters are caught on has ended up liquid, equivocal, indeed challenged, and now not a settled and inactive space. Various titles following this definition soon followed, it was given more emphasis when the article mentioned different literatures pertaining to the diaspora’s. The implications that is given in this article is the fracturing at the very site of identification in the postcolonial self.

Total Community Response: Performing the Avant-garde as a Democratic Gesture in Manila

Flores, P (2017), “Greatness” alludes to physical ability and intellectual intuition, a transformative capacity to turn condition into potential. To conceive of something as incredible is to contribute it with the otherworldly and, within the same vein, to create it talk to the common, to the mass of individuals who must make it genuine with daringness. Though this seems to be the starting definition in the article, we learn that this can come with heavy implications as this was during the Marcos regime, we all know what happened during the Marcos regime as it silenced media to one specific location and the country was considered as a democratic country, this comes with heavy implication with the works of art as it can lead to the limiting of themes or it limits the endless possibilities that man can create during that time, when one criteria is not followed, it can be automatically disproven in a snap. This is a heavy implication in art during that time because an artist cannot express his creativity fully.

Twisting Memory for the Fun of it

Duchamp was one of the most famous artists in the 20th century, amid this period, he gave numerous interviews in which he frequently took a capricious stance, of the many topics that he used for his interviews, one stood out to many, Duchamp, M (2011) stated his comments concerning the beginning of readymade works of art— mass-produced regular objects that he to begin with chosen in 1913-1914 in Paris, and after that after taking off in 1915 to Unused York he found other illustrations. When leaving home, a person works through an acculturation handle amid which they are never genuinely settled. This article considers the destiny of fabric objects in connection to the veracity of Duchamp’s memory 50 a long time after the truth within the 1960s, a time when the craftsman was too the forebear of a postmodern position. With the given works in the article, Duchamp came up with conclusions that relates to the formation of a new expression. Almost all of the readymades that he has done was indifferent to such linguistics slippages because he was still at home. In the end of the article, he sent a letter to Katherine Dreier, saying “It is a curious thing (again): why I could be so energetic in America and the minute I land in Europe my muscles refuse to function.’ This can be an implication of art as it can affect the whole artist’s motivation to do work, a certain work is an artists’ crème de la crème, If a certain factor affects your position to do your craft, only the artist can change that given factor, may it be a place or an object.

Conclusion

These 5 articles highlighted the implications of art and what it can do if an artist is exposed to it, in the end, only the artists can make such changes to suit them and though sometimes, they do not require these changes in order to work, one must consider the endless possibilities of art when these factors do not hinder an artist. The endless possibilities we can achieve through elimination of implications can pave the way for new discoveries and even new artists that are not known, only time will tell on how man will address these implications and what can be the end result for art, one thing we can say with the utmost certainty is that the field of art is only at its beginning, there will be more discoveries and more implications that will come, but man will find a way to pave the way for future generations to come.

References

1. Flores, P. D. (2017). “Total Community Response”: Performing the Avant-garde as a Democratic Gesture in Manila. Southeast of Now, 13-38.
2. Flores, P. D. (2017). Art History and the Global Challenge: A Critical. Artl@s Bulletin , 33-34.
3. Gerard, L., & Tomacruz, M. D. (n.d). Infrastructures of Colonial Modernity: Public Works in Manila from the late 19th to the early 20th century. JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURE AND ALLIED ARTS IN THE PHILIPPINES, 1-25.
4. Moore, M. (2011). Marcel Duchamp: “Twisting Memory for the Fun of It” or a Form of Retroactive Interference?—Recalling the Impacts of Leaving Home on the Readymade. The Memory Waka, 393-403.
5. Reyes, M. L. (2017). Itinerant Figures: Textual Mobilities in Fiction’s Diasporic Turn. Kritika Kultura 28, 190-197.

Good and Bad Art from Tolstoy’s and Danto’s Perspective

Abstract

Although people realized that there is a problem in defining what is art a long time ago, this question is still controversial until now. Tons of artists and philosophers claim their own standards for categorizing good art from bad art. Lots of people relate art to beauty and pleasure, but there are some philosophers who hold different ideas like Tolstoy and Danto. They emphasize more on the additional quality that the artwork carries. Thus, this essay aims to analyze the meaning of art, targeting how Tolstoy defines art differently from Danto according to their essays about defining art. The communication between the artist and the audience is highly asserted in Tolstoy’s point of view, whereas the art world is perfectly created by Danto. Though both of them affirm the meaning of art, the ways of differentiating good art from bad art are considerably different. By comparing these two views of art, a clear concept might be constructed, knowing how to categorize art on its own. Based on these theories, we can know the purpose of art, and what is the secret of the art, instead of just commenting on the appearance of the art itself. However, these standards for defining art are just for reference, not a strict index that all people should follow. People could apply these perspectives and create their own standards of differentiating art. After all, these standards are created by humans, so there are no right or wrong answers.

Keywords:

communication, universal assessable, artworld, counterfeit, invisible differences

Introduction

In general, some people usually connect art with beauty, whereas others may hold the idea that art is an indefinable concept. However, for Tolstoy and Danto, it is not as simple as most people’s view. Both of them realize that there is a problem with defining art. Unlike what Oscar Wilde (1890) advocated, “Art for art’s sake”, Tolstoy and Danto believe that arts embodied “meanings”. That is, they think art not just relates to the aesthetic aspects but has something to do with moral issues.

In Tolstoy’s point of view, art is not just for the elite class to share, but it should be universally accessible. As to Danto, aesthetics is just a way of pursuing pleasure; in contrast, the philosophy of art is appropriate for dealing with the question: of what art is. Thus, they came up with distinctive standards for defining art. On the one hand, Tolstoy emphasizes the power of feeling, which could connect people together through art. Danto, on the other hand, points out that actually, not everything could be art. There are some invisible properties deep inside each work of art, so it is necessary to add new theories to make it real art.

Most importantly, both of them deny that every piece of art is good enough to be art, and that is why each of them has a different canon to distinguish good arts from bad ones. Nevertheless, why should we know what kind of art is good and what is bad? Does art have something to do with us relevantly? Therefore, the aim of this current paper is to discuss how Danto and Tolstoy define art from good to bad in terms of the concerns of defining art, the importance of art, the elements of differentiating art, and the benefits of comparing these two points of view will be explained as well.

Literature Review

The idea of art as a way for human pleasure or life is not necessary for Tolstoy’s view. Instead, he regards art much morally. Like Kardozi (2011) mentioned, “Tolstoy considers art as a means of communication between humans. More than language, art could break all boundaries and establish a relationship between the creator of a work of art and a viewer.” Clearly, he doesn’t assume art in a traditional way but points out that art could help people connect with each other. After all, that is one of the vital needs of humans. Regarding Danto, he denies that the purpose of art is for pursuing beauty, either. However, his view is slightly different from Tolstoy’s. As Yale University Press (2013) concluded, “If there are no standards according to which we can differentiate art from non-art, art is a vacuous concept. If everything can be art, nothing can be art. Art has come to an end.” Therefore, we can apparently see that Danto yearns for building a set of standards that can separate real art from non-art, giving a chance to enhance and glorify those creative arts.

As long as art exists, it could be either good or bad.

According to Scott (2002):

The more that art restricts itself to a particular audience, the more obscure and incomprehensible it becomes to people outside that particular audience. Good art is not confusing and incomprehensible to most people. On the contrary, good art can communicate its meaning to most people, because it expresses its meaning in a way that can be understood by everyone.

It is obviously seen that he highlights the importance of the concept “universally accessible”, which was emphasized in Tolstoy’s standard of good art. Moreover, he regards art which relates to religion the best as Scott (2002) mentioned, “The ‘highest’ feelings which art may express are related to religious perception.” Also, as Gracyk (2002) explained, “Good art ‘unites’ us, as in ‘Christian Art.’” Thus, good art seems to be religious and communicative. Why is it communicative? As Gracyk (2002) mentioned, “it is sincere and the artist is compelled by an inner need to express this particular emotion.” That is, sincerity is the crucial element that makes art good art. Even so, Minguzzi (2013) added, “Following the conceptual creativity of his European colleagues, Danto coined the term to suggest that it is not possible to understand conceptual art without the help of the art world.” When it comes to Danto’s era, it seems that the traditional standards are not enough to judge those dynamic arts, so the art world is needed. In this art world, “Danto introduces the concepts of IT (Imitation Theory) in contraposition with RT (Reality Theory) to explain how to define art, especially referring to the avant-garde movement and the post-impressionist paintings.” described by Minguzzi (2013). That is, works of art must include both Imitation Theory and Reality Theory that could be affirmed as good art.

In contrast, as long as there is good art, bad art exists, too. As mentioned before, art should be universally accessible from Tolstoy’s point of view, so it should not belong to a specific society. According to Scott (2002), “Tolstoy criticizes the belief that art is only relevant to a particular class of society, saying that this is a misconception which can lead to obscurity and decadence in art.”

As far as Danto’s view, “According to it (RT), the artists in question were to be understood not as unsuccessfully imitating real forms” as Minguzzi (2013) mentioned in AESTHETICS OF VISUAL ART: Arthur Danto’s “The Artworld”. Therefore, we know that if art does not follow Reality Theory, it shall not be considered real art.

Results

When it comes to the explanation of defining art, Tolstoy and Danto hold different ideas. Firstly, it is essential to know how they notice the problem of defining art. According to Tolstoy, “Hundreds of thousands of workmen spend their whole lives in hard labor to satisfy the demands of art” (§ 10) it is not difficult to understand that a work of art actually requires tons of humans to make it perfect. Therefore, since too many men are sacrificed because of art, the question has been brought out “is it true that art is so important that such sacrifices should be made for its sake?” (§ 14) That is, Tolstoy is concerned about what kinds of arts really deserve such sacrifices? In Tolstoy’s point of view, “we keep redefining art to incorporate canonical works, deemed canonical by the elite class that dominates the world of art. The result is art theory that disparages the art ‘of the people in favor of elite or ‘genteel art.’ ” (§ 67) Clearly, the emphasis on the whole society is much more important than focusing on a specific class of the society. To him, pursuing pleasure in arts is not art. Unlike defining art based on its form or beauty, art for him is related to moral issues as mentioned before. Art is not merely to produce beauty but to communicate with each other. That is to say, he cares more about the connection between the artist and the audience. As long as the artist can “infect” his own feeling to the audience through his work of art, it is art. This point could be clearly seen in chapter five, “The activity of art is based on the fact that a man receiving through his sense of hearing or sight another man’s expression of feeling, is capable of experiencing the emotion which moved the man who expressed it.” (§ 49) Owing to this, it is obviously known that art is important to everyone to a certain degree since communication plays a crucial role in humans’ life. Art can be important to all of society.

Similarly, Danto disagrees the aim of art is merely for delectation, either. Instead, the philosophy of art for Danto seems to solve the question of art: what makes art?

During the period the late 1880s and early 1900s, it is no longer popular to view art as imitations of Plato’s point of view. The definition of art had been overthrown. Some may hold the idea that art does not exist in real life like Oscar Wilde, whereas others may think that we need a new art world to define those creative arts. After all, if everything could be art, which one is actual art? Those are the new attitudes toward art in the early 1900s when Post-Impressionism was in the mainstream. That is, art at that time was not just mimicking but with much more imagination and creation. Therefore, Danto invented an Artworld to redefine those undefined arts.

Good Art

As human beings, people would usually judge art from good to bad based on their experiences. For Tolstoy, good art is a means of communication. “To evoke in oneself a feeling one has once experienced, and having evoked it in oneself, then, by means of movements, lines, colors, sounds or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that others may experience the same feeling – this is the activity of art.” (§ 51) That is, the transmission of the feeling from the artist to the audience is extremely crucial to a work of art. As Tolstoy claimed, “The activity of art is based on the fact that a man receiving through his sense of hearing or sight another man’s expression of feeling, is capable of experiencing the emotion which moved the man who expressed it.” (§ 57) Most importantly, the audience can understand the “same” feeling that be expressed clearly by the artist, so the work of art could be regarded as good art. However, the quality of art depends on the conditions required artists to have in order to infect the audience, including individuality, clearness, and sincerity. In other words, the artist should be more specific to his own idea in a clear way, and the most important thing is that he should be sincere enough to create his work of art.

According to Tolstoy, the degree of the infectiousness of art depends on three conditions:

(1) On the greater or lesser individuality of the feeling transmitted; (2) on the greater or lesser clearness with which the feeling is transmitted; (3) on the sincerity of the artist, that is, on the greater or lesser force with which the artist himself feels the emotion he transmits. (§164)

It is important for the artist to have just “one” feeling in his work of art. In other words, he cannot mix with other things up in his work of art, and that is the individuality of feeling. Secondly, the artist needs to express his art clearly so as to let the recipient connect with his art easily. Finally, sincerity is the inner state of the artist that needs to be understood by the recipients. No matter whether the art is good or bad, the artist has to be sincere enough first, so the recipient could accept the feeling directly. Tolstoy then found the problem that art seems to be dominated by the elite class, but in that way, art is only created in order to satisfy those people. As he mentioned, “we keep redefining art to incorporate canonical works, deemed canonical by the elite class that dominates the world of art. The result is art theory that disparages art ‘of the people in favor of elite or ‘genteel art.’” (§ 67) Thus, he claims that art should be both universally accessible to everyone by saying “If art is something important, then it is universally accessible.” Good arts should not confuse people; on the contrary, comprehensible arts that everyone can understand are regarded as good arts. As Scott (2002) mentioned, “Tolstoy also claims that interpretation or criticism of art is irrelevant and unnecessary because any good work of art is able to express thoughts and feelings which can be clearly understood by most people.” Apparently, if the art is good enough, there is no need to have critics comment or judge those works of art. Furthermore, good arts are usually related to religions. In Tolstoy’s point of view, art is not strictly aesthetic but moral and social. “Is it a means of union among men, joining them together in the same feelings, and indispensable for the life and progress towards the well-being of individuals and of humanity.” (§ 52) Take the Bible, for example, it not only gathers people together but also serves as an important life-leading rule for tons of people, and so as Koran? Those are all works of art that have the theme of religion and can be understood and agreed upon by several people in many languages, so they are regarded as good art in Tolstoy’s view. Also, after reading Homer’s work when Tolstoy was a child, he claimed that “Just as in ancient Greece crowds assembled to hear the poems of Homer, so today in Russia, as in many countries and many ages, the Gospel parables, and much else of the highest art, are gladly heard by the common people.” (§ 144) Thus, we can clearly understand by the metaphor that good art, which is similar to Humor’s work everyone could be able to connect.

Instead of a vacuous concept, Danto claimed that art should be about something that embodies “meaning”. The meaning that contends in the artworks is due to the “invisible common property”. As Randol (2014) mentioned, “Danto concludes that for every piece of art that has ever existed, there must be an invisible common property. Works of art, he contends, are embodied meanings. Embodiment is not clearly defined, but one can think of embodied meanings like one thinks of a person’s character: it is there, a foundational property, deeply hidden, manifesting in personality.” As long as there is meaning in the artworks, the task for the viewers is to indicate the invisible differences of the artworks, which is the meaning. In short, meaning and embodiment are the two criteria to define a work of art, along with the interpretation of the viewers.

In order to comprehend conceptual art, Danto suggested boasting an Artworld, which allows the creative works of art to be apprehensible. In Artworld, Danto emphasized the concepts of IT and RT. IT means Imitation Theory, which is the idea that artworks represent the imitation of real things in the world. However, IT is not good enough to explain the movement of Post Impressionism. According to The Art Story Foundation (2018), “most Post-Impressionists focused on abstract form and pattern in the application of paint to the surface of the canvas. Their early leanings toward abstraction paved the way for the radical modernist exploration of abstraction that took place in the early-20th century.” Clearly, the artworks that Post Impressionists made were not just mimic real life but were more creative, so IT is absolutely insufficient for those innovative ones. Therefore, theoretical changes were needed. Danto then established RT, meaning Reality Theory, emphasizing that art is something original and distinguishable.

Owing to the popularity of Imitation Theory at that time, it seems that mimicking to real-life objects is considered good art. However, in Danto’s point of view, it is no longer good enough for those Post-Impressionists to present their arts since if they keep viewing those arts by using Imitation Theory, those creative arts may be regarded as weird or not even arts like he noted, “In terms of the prevailing artistic theory (IT), it was impossible to accept these as art unless inept art: otherwise they could be discounted as hoaxes, self-advertisements, or the visual counterparts of madmen’s ravings.” (§573) Take The Large Bather (1900-1906) for example, Cézanne presents a unique structure on canvas by using simple shapes, lines, and geometric forms with thick impasto. In this way, spatial ambiguity is specifically emphasized. Cézanne creates a visual effect that allowed the bathers in the front sort of merging into the landscape on the back. This is a new concept Cézanne created, called Cubism. Unlike Impressionists highlighting the natural forms, Cézanne instead represents Post-Impressionists to concentrate more on the formal structure. On the one hand, rather than focusing on the objects like the bathers or the trees, Cézanne pays more attention to the structure that creates a new space in the painting, which fits Danto’s transition from IT to RT theory, creating new based on the real things. Hence, that is the reason why the idea of Reality theory is coming out. Speaking of Cézanne’s painting, it corresponds to the transition of IT to RT, making the difference from just mocking the objects to creating something new, which is the exact idea why Danto proposed this theory. What’s more, Cubism became the trend in that period and also supports Danto’s idea of the art world. In other words, “To see something as art requires something the eye cannot decry – an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art: an art world.” (§579) argued by Danto in his text. As we can see, the Artworld that Danto held out is defined in the historical context with the atmosphere of Reality Theory. Cézanne painted this piece of artwork by creating a new concept – Cubism, which is a fit to Reality Theory, something unique and distinguishable. Furthermore, he is the leading artist of Post-Impressionism, so let alone that his up-to-date paintings also match the historical context at that time. In addition, as long as it is easily recognized by others, RT allowed artists to present art including real objects, which also matches Cézanne’s painting since he includes the bathers and trees, etc. And that is also included in Danto’s theory, “According to it (RT), the artists in question were to be understood not as unsuccessfully imitating real forms but as successfully creating new ones,” (§573) which is exactly how Cézanne presented his work. Most importantly, it is acceptable to examine a painting through its formal properties in RT rather than just judge it based on its quality of how well it can imitate real things. With the structure that Cézanne emphasized, it is rather relevant to that point of view. As a result, even if the Artworld outweighs RT more than IT, artists still could add real objects into their artwork, but rather than focusing on the imitation of real things, they tend to concentrate on how their arts are different from each other. Because of that, we can clearly know that Danto’s theory could serve as a blueprint for Post-Impressionism to present the combination of reality and creativity. It is also the perfect description for Cézanne’s painting since he has something creative that others never think about at that time, which could be easily differentiated from others.

Bad Art

Bad arts, in contrast, unlike good arts, are incomprehensible to the public and ranked at the second level of all arts. As Tolstoy mentioned, “Art cannot be incomprehensible to the great masses only because it is very good” (§115) Therefore, it is obvious that if art is not comprehensible, it is not considered good art. Bad arts primarily contain three main sections, including pride, melancholia, and sexual desire. Since pride is considered a sin in the Bible (which is considered good art), it is reasonable that anything related to this genre would be regarded as bad art. As to sexual desire, to Tolstoy, it is just for animals, not for arts. Therefore, some works of art like Fifty Shadows of Grey or Sex and the City may be considered bad art because they both are related to sexual desire. Intriguingly, either good arts or bad arts should be sincere enough. However, this is not the case for counterfeits, which are even not regarded as arts in Tolstoy’s point of view. Counterfeits are the worst arts compared to good and bad arts. The common markers for counterfeits are borrowing, imitation, striking (shocking), and interesting (§117-118). After explaining all the methods, Tolstoy claimed that “Poetic- means borrowed. All borrowing merely recalls to the reader, spectator, or listener, some dim recollection of artistic impressions received from previous works of art and does not infect with feeling experienced by the artist himself.” (§122) Thus, his argument can be obviously seen that those copycats just remind the audience about the feeling they had before instead of the artist himself creating a new one, and that is counterfeit art. Furthermore, as mentioned above, arts should be understood by everyone, so if art is comprehensible only to a certain class of society, it is also considered counterfeit in Tolstoy’s view.

As mentioned above, Danto emphasizes the meaning of art. Artworks are like real objects on the basic level but with something else. Although it is allowed to imitate real things in real life in Danto’s Artworld, if the artist cannot assimilate the current trend of art or make something creative, it is not qualified as good art. Take Danto’s example – Rauschenberg’s bed, for instance, it is actually just a real bed, so if people regard it just as bad, it is not approved as art. However, if they assume it on the basis of a real thing and include something non-real concept like Brillo Box, it is perfectly acceptable to be categorized as art.

Conclusion

In Tolstoy’s perspective, art could be either good or bad as long as the audience can get a clear emotion that the artist would like to deliver. Yet, in Danto’s art world, it seems that even if the artist clearly delivers the feelings he or she makes in the art, their work of art may still be categorized as non-art if it does not follow the current flow.

Humans always look upon a piece of art and give it meaning or connect it to their own experiences, if art could be nothing related to society, how could we judge that it is a piece of good art? It would be an extreme standard of considering which one is good or bad work if just viewing art by whether it is pure or not related to life and nature, which will probably kill many good pieces of artwork.

In contrast, Danto considered more about how people would view the new artwork. In this way, the brand-new kinds of work could be admired, while old kinds of arts could still serve as good arts since they are different from one and another, which is rather perfect.

By comparing these two different views toward art, we can clearly know how to use different methods to see art in a different way based on these theories. By understanding the feeling of an artist, we can surely notice what he or she would like to deliver, in other words, making these arts more sense to more people. After all, most of the time when we go to the art gallery, we won’t know the exact meaning of the paintings unless we read the description, which let us comprehend the artist and also the messages he wants us to know.

Actually, the standard of defining a piece of good art or bad art depends on how people see it. After all, those standards for art are defined by humans. Someone sets rules, someone agrees, and someone disagrees. Everyone must have their own standard for defining art, so there are actually no right or wrong answers for which art is good and which is bad, it just depends on how people choose to see them.

Reference

1. Danto, A. C. (1924). What art is? New Haven, NH: Yale University Press.
2. Danto, A. C. (1964). The Artworld. New York, NY: The Journal of Philosophy.
3. Tolstoy, L. (1897). What Is Art? London: Bristol Classical Press.
4. Kardozi, K. (2011). Leo Tolstoy’s “WHAT IS ART”. WordPress.com. Retrieved from https://themovingsilent.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/leo-tolstoys-what-is-art/
5. Scott, A. (2002). Tolstoy, What is Art? Queequeg’s Crossing. Retrieved from http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/tolstoy.html
6. Gracyk, T. (2002). Outline of Tolstoy’s What is Art? Minnesota State University Moorhead. Retrieved from http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20of%20art/tolstoy.outline.htm
7. The Art Foundation (2018). Post-Impressionism. The Art Story Modern Art Insight. Retrieved from https://www.theartstory.org/movement-post-impressionism.htm
8. Young, B. (2018). Danto on Indiscernibility. Gadfly Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.thegadflymagazine.org/home-1/danto-on-indiscernibility

Do you ever wish you could be a superhero like Batman, The Incredible Hulk, or Spiderman? Growing up, I idolized seeing superheroes go as far as to even dress up as them for Halloween and watch movies with friends for hours and hours. The heroes captured my imagination and made me want to know more about them, and I assume that you felt the same way about these masked heroes when you first saw and understood what they were. That is why I wanted to discuss superheroes as my theme of this paper because it was something that always made me ponder the work that goes into creating these heroes, and by taking some time to research these artworks, hopefully, I may have a better understanding of what it takes to create their costumes and characters. In this essay, I’m going to discuss the first accounts of superhero drawings, the use of superheroes in films, as well as some more recent artworks such as graffiti work, paintings, and drawings of superheroes from all kinds of different talented and underrated artists in the world.

To begin, the earliest account of a superhero drawing or artwork being created that I was able to find was done by a man by the name of Phil Davis who created ‘Mandrake the Magician’ all the way back on June 11th, 1934. Some of his powers consisted of invisibility, teleportation, and shape-shifting, as well as countless others that helped him fight crime. This went against the most commonly referred to the ‘first superhero’, Superman, who came along four years later. Mandrake the Magician is an important figure to discuss in my paper because he was the first attempt at creating someone who has supernatural-like powers, while his powers were very simple and dumbed down, I think they are a very cool and interesting way of pushing the culture of heroes forward. To discuss the overall look of Mandrake, there would have to be a white male dressed in a very sleek dark blue trimmed and flashy suit that demands your attention, as well as his top hat that glosses and shines which was the source of some of his powers. Mandrake also has a vibrant red cape that flows in the wind behind him as he fights crime and overall adds to the aesthetic that Mr. Davis was attempting to create, as well as being the color of passion that shows the drive he has to protect those he loves. The tone of Mandrake’s character would have to be smooth and friendly from the clean suit and top hat to the thought-provoking, inviting personality vibrantly echoing from his appearance. However, arguably the most interesting part of the comic is that the magician was a representation of an actual magician named Leon Mandrake which allows us to make a more personal connection with the hero because we know he was just like us.

Furthermore, one of the very first attempts at a ‘superhero-like persona’ in a film would be ‘Zorro’ created by Johnston McCulley nearly one hundred years ago, in 1919. Zorro was a vigilante who fought for justice for the poor and mistreated and wore a mask to hide his identity from those he battled with his trusty sword. I know what you may be thinking Zorro isn’t a superhero, he doesn’t even have any powers, and while that may be true, he is still a hero for standing up for what he believes is right, and that is deserving of making it on this list of superheroes in my opinion. In the film, Zorro dawns a dull black mask with eye holes cut out for him to see. I believe because we know little about Zoro’s personality, he does not carry any color in his outfit to draw attention to himself, he is also donning a black Spanish originating like suit that is very subtle and is used to give off the feeling of mystery of who is behind the mask. The tone of Zoro’s character I believe is best described as a light or hope shrouded behind dark clothes, representing the awful things he must do to save those being put down by the villains of the film. As many know, ‘Zoro’ is a romance movie with him fighting for the love of his life, and I believe his costume gives off a passionate vibe when looking at it very actively and fits the meaning of the movie wonderfully. I really enjoy the simple design of the outfit as a whole.

Next, I’m going to talk about one of the world’s greatest graffiti superhero artists in the world – Adam Brazier. Adam Brazier, a young man from London, England, made a career out of spray painting companies’ walls to make them more inviting and interesting to look at and is most notably known for his work with re-creating superheroes from comic books, avengers films, as well as D.C. films and comics. My personal favorite artwork from Brazier’s collection has to be Iron Man, who is my personal favorite superhero growing up and one of the most beloved heroes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Iron Man was first created in 1963 by a group of four men who worked for Marvel Studios at the time, the first being Stan Lee, secondly Larry Lieber, Jack Kirby, and lastly Don Heck. While Tony Stark himself does not have any superpowers, his Iron Man suit does consist of superpowers such as the ability to fly, withstand an unbelievable amount of damage to his super suit, and an array of weapons. In the graffiti artwork done by Mr. Brazier, he created the effect of three-dimensional space on a flat building wall by using a white canvas with old Iron Man comics appearing to pop out from the wall, as well as Tony Stark in the mark four suit he created in the films that contain an outline around the shape of the suit that guides my focus around the image. The suit itself is visually stunning to look at, from the metallic red gunmetal look to the glowing eyes that nearly pierce your soul, they are so intense to the base almost tan-looking face piece that makes the suit appear as a robotic man, which I believe it accomplishes wonderfully. Brazier’s artwork also contains natural lighting that gives the face a glowing effect throughout, as well as shadow toward the back of the costume to show which way the sun is affecting the artwork. Outside of the visible image is Iron Man’s power core, which is a vibrant, almost crystal-like, heart-shaped core that keeps him alive from the metal shrapnel that is lodged in Tony’s heart.

In addition, to graffiti superhero works there were also amazing drawings done during this time one being Jim Lee’s ‘Batman: Hush’, in which he captured the pure size of Gotham City, as well as the costume that Batman and Catwoman dawn in the comics and films. Batman was first created back in 1939 and he is considered D.C.’s Iron Man because the characters are very similar with both not having any natural superpowers and rather gaining them from their suits. For example, some of Batman’s superpowers are genius intellect, great hand-to-hand fighting skills, as well as an arsenal of weapons at his disposal at all times. Mr. Lee’s artwork ‘Batman: Hush’ uses very dark tones to emphasize the troubled place that is Gotham, as well as using bright lights on the scaffolding of the skyscrapers to show the hustle and bustle of the city at night time. The artwork also appears to be using a three-point perspective, as we have used and even drawn in our own art class on the buildings in the background appear to all be going to imaginary origin point off the visible plane of the drawing. From analyzing the characters themselves, you can get the mood that both Batman and Catwoman are in a romantic relationship by the way that they are looking at each other very intently. Mr. Lee’s characters’ costumes appear to be drawn with colored ink pen of sorts to give off the moonlight color effect that is beaming off of them from an artificial source of light. Batman’s suit in the drawing appears sharp and extremely detailed as you follow from the legs up toward the head in which he is wearing a mask with horn-like ears on the top to illustrate the head of a bat, and he wears a gold tool belt that he grabs his weapons and useful items from, and lastly, he wears a dark cape that flies in the wind behind him as he pounces on his targets from out of nowhere. While Catwoman wears a tight-fitting ‘sexy’ suit to seduce those that she is fighting to take advantage of them to get what she wants, and wears a mask that has a pair of ears at the top as well to symbolize a cat’s head, and goggles uses to hide her eyes from evildoers.

Lastly, I would like to talk about one of the most unique and amazing forms of superhero art being superhero body painting with makeup. This idea was created by Lianne Moseley, a makeup artist and comic book enthusiast who uses contour lines throughout the makeup to sharpen and enhance the structures or bodies she is painting. One example in particular that I loved the most was her painting of Aquaman on a normal, everyday, average Joe. In her artwork, she painted the man using these ultra-realistic representational pieces that are so exciting to look at, they make you wish you knew how to do it yourself. Throughout the body of the man, you can make out clearly distinct thick, smooth, and bold black lines that help give the persona she is creating shape and depth. On the man’s stomach and arms, you can see a fish-like set of gills that would allow him to swim just like he can in the comics. It is painted in a very vibrant and lively manner. I love every bit of her work, it is amazing and like nothing else I have seen in the form of art.

To conclude, I hope that I was able to invite your excitement over the subject of superheroes in the subject of art by showing you many unique and original ideas on what our masked heroes could portray or be. By providing a little background on my discovery of superheroes, maybe someone else may find themselves interested and wanting to know more than what they came in previously believing or understanding about the subject as a whole. To wrap up this paper, I would like to say that this was a fun challenge of trying to learn and or understand the work that goes into creating a superhero, and I’m glad that we decided to do this.

Schapiro: ‘By style is usually meant the constant form – and sometimes the constant elements, qualities, and expression – in the art of an individual or a group’.

Barthes: ‘Style excuses everything, absolves us from everything, notably any historical reflection; it imprisons the spectator in the servitude of a pure formalism’.

The above two quotations give, firstly, a working definition of the term style as used in art history in the 1950s; and secondly a firm repudiation of its use from the 1970s. Although the tone of the quotations is different, and Barthes was referring to theatre rather than painting, both quotations place style as an internal quality of art; one that separates form from function, and from history. It is therefore interesting to note the use of style in the construction of art history as a narrative; the periodisation of art history where stylistic labels are aligned with dates, as in Alfred H. Barr’s 1936 flowchart Cubism and Abstract Art which documents the development of Modern art from 1890 to 1935 [1]. This duality of application, where the style of art is seen as a purely formal quality estranged from history whilst simultaneously being used to label historical periods, reflects Wölfflin’s ‘double root of style’ where both the formal, internal ‘mode of representation’ and the external expression of ‘individual, periods and peoples’ shape artistic development.

This dichotomy leads to questions regarding the uses and limitations of the concept of style for the practice of art history, particularly in relation to stylistic labels, periodisation and contextual versus narrative art history, that this essay will address with reference to the writings of Jás Elsner, Williband Sauerländer, Heinrich Wölfflin, Meyer Schapiro and Svetlana Albers, and to two paintings, Claude Monet’s, Boats in the Pool of London, c.1871 [3] and André Derain’s, The Pool of London, 1906 [4].

Elsner defined the ‘basic stylistic reflex’ as ‘the grouping of like with like and the disjunction of unlikes, on the basis of…formal analysis’. This feels like a scientific process of classification, with close examination of the formal features of an artwork at its core; but many choices are required. Which art works? What formal attributes? What connections? Elsner accepts? that stylistic analysis is ‘subjective and judgemental’ but others such as Schapiro saw style as a function of the date and place of origin of works, and, ‘a means of tracing relationships between schools of art’. Stylistic analysis can be a tool utilised by archaeologists and connoisseurs for categorising and dating artefacts, and is most useful when exemplars can be firmly dated either by contextual historical data or scientific analysis such as carbon dating. Unfortunately overreach in its use without supporting data has resulted in style being seen as ‘the keyword for the bridge leading from visual perception to historical insight’. While Elsner felt that the move from ‘object to history’ based on style was ‘speculative’, Sauerländer went further in his criticism, the ‘notion of style is only too easily transformed from an instrument of description, classification and rational understanding into a medium of revelation’. It is clear that art historians must be careful in their use stylistic analysis so as not to make unsupported leaps from art to history, but this is not to say that stylistic analysis does not have a place in the modern discipline.

Stylistic analysis led to stylistic labels; those relating to 16th and 17th century Italian art such as ‘Renaissance’ and ‘Baroque’ were retrospectively applied to what was seen as? the normative art of the period. But, by the 20th century artists were much more aware of these labels, and indeed some, such as the Futurist Marinetti, established and advertised labels in ‘manifestos’ that set their work apart from both the past and current styles they hoped to supersede. This artistic consciousness of the stylistic label, as both a descriptive and categorising term led Gombrich to suggest that style could only be used expressively when the artist consciously chose to use one style over another. However, this is problematic for a number of reasons; firstly, artists of the 16th and 17th centuries who painted in the Renaissance and Baroque styles would not have recognised the labels, even though the forms they describe were apparent and normative, secondly much art of the period was produced for patrons such as the church, the state and the aristocracy, and the freedom of artists to ‘choose’ a style of painting is therefore uncertain. Even in the modern period where artists were familiar with stylistic labels they may have been directed to a particular style by the market or by patrons, that is, the choice of style might be economic rather than expressive.

Another issue inherent with stylistic labelling was identified by Alpers, who found it so problematic she avoided its use altogether; ‘Stylistic labels are treated as ‘attributes of the works or groups of works’ as though they are ‘possessed by each object’. That is, the label is no longer a descriptive term but rather a quality of the work itself. Gombrich described how style labels could be used ‘as a laudatory term denoting a desirable consistence and conspicuousness that makes an…artwork stand out’. Labelling a work as, for example, Impressionist imbues it with a marketable value without addressing the basic question of quality; is the painting good, bad or mediocre?

The mapping of stylistic labels against time leads to periodisation, where stylistic labels become synonymous with temporal periods. Again, this can be a useful tool for classification when used in conjunction with other historical evidence; but simplification and concentration on the art of the West, privileging dominant areas, art forms and artists at the expense of the art non-Western and minority artists is a major limitation. While Schapiro may have believed that, ‘the values of modern art have led to a more sympathetic and objective approach to exotic art than was possible fifty or a hundred years ago’ it is clear that the borrowing of formal characteristics from non-western art excluded context, meaning, value and attribution.

Krauss denounced the Modernist view of periodisation as, ‘a series of rooms en filade. Within each room the individual artist explored, to the limits of his experience and his formal intelligence, the separate constituents of his medium. The effect of his pictorial act was to open simultaneously the door to the next space and close out access to the one behind him’. This is one of the strongest criticisms of both periodisation and formalist art history; the one way system of artistic development where the artist works alone, isolated from history and influence, exploring his medium with only his genius to guide him in his act of pure expression, ignoring the possible significances of context, content, meaning and history.

Contextual or social art history began in the 1970s and 80s when art itself became more socially aware. It attempts to map arts connections to society at large, both at the point of production and via reception studies throughout its afterlife, and add significantly to our knowledge of the meaning and purposes of works of art. Functions, patronage, institutions are investigated through the lenses of gender, politics, religion and geography, amongst others, to reveal more about both art and its uses in society.

Narrative art history, on the other hand, has a long history; from 1568 when the second edition of Vasari’s Lives was published the biological cycle of growth, bloom then decay has been mapped onto the progression of art from ancient times This notion of art history as evolutionary progress was persistent; though by 1915, when Heinrich Wölfflin used close viewing and formal analysis to support his formalist view of narrative art history, the development he proposed was internal to the art being reviewed. Wölfflin’s book Principles of Art History documented his ideas about five pairs of fundamental concepts based on the differences between the ‘classical’ art of the 16th century and ‘baroque’ art 17th century, designed to reveal the development of style over time. It is important to reiterate that style labels were attached to art retrospectively, and that the art used to construct the narrative of development and periodisation was chosen to support the view of progress.

In order to investigate further? the usefulness of style based art history using Wölfflin’s fundamental concepts as a starting point for formal analysis of modern paintings I have chosen two paintings of the Pool of London, both painted by French men some thirty-five years apart. These paintings were chosen to exclude content and nationality from the comparison, and to aid the focus on the formal aspects of the works. The first is generally categorised as an Impressionist painting, and the second a Fauvist work.

Using Wölfflin’s fundamental concepts we could describe Monet’s Boats in the Pool of London as painterly; distant buildings and bridges are shrouded in a haze of fog mixed with smoke from the chimneys of factories and steam boats, and clusters of ships are barely discernible in the mid-distance. The thin, pale light that filters through the dimness catches the water to the left of the picture plane, leaving the right hand-side in the shadows. Depth is implied by aerial rather than linear perspective, and is emphasised by the recession of boats on a diagonal from bottom right to upper left, a diagonal reinforced by the angled masts of docked boats. The open form of the painting gives a feeling of space beyond the edges of the canvas particularly to the right where buildings are cut off rather than contained within the picture space. The groups of boats, ships and buildings are welded together displaying unity rather than multiplicity, and while no individual element of the painting shows absolute clarity, taken as a whole there is relative clarity.

Using the same fundamental concepts to analyse Derain’s Pool of London gives similar results. Despite the bold outline visible on the large boat that dominates the picture plane, overall the composition is painterly rather than linear. Distance is again described by a combination of aerial perspective, with the distant Tower Bridge appearing faint and blue, and a strong diagonal motif, in this instance the large boat angled from bottom right towards the top left. The boat is radically cut off at the bottom right hand corner evidencing an open form, and again the composition works as a whole rather as distinct parts, displaying both unity and relative clarity.

It is clear that significant differences in the appearances of these paintings are missed and unexplained in this analysis. Firstly the basic issue of scale, as examination of these paintings reveal significant differences in size, the Monet is 470 x 730 mm while the Derain is larger at 657 x 991 mm. Secondly, colour, the Monet is a naturalistic depiction and has a limited tonal palette reflecting the atmospheric conditions on a foggy day. Derain on the other hand has used a range of saturated colours, predominantly reds and oranges, for the boats, set against the complementary greens of the water and blues of the distant buildings and bridge. In order to explain these differences we need to look to the context of the painting, pure formal analysis is not sufficient.

Monet aimed for a real or naturalistic image, he painted what he saw. ‘What I like most of all in London is the fog. How could English painters of the 19th century have painted its houses brick by brick? Those fellows painted bricks they did not see, bricks they could not see.’ Henry Pether’s View of the Thames, Pool of London, from Billingsgate to London Bridge, c.1862 [2] is an example of the type of painting that Monet was referring too, an idealised version of the Pool of London, linear with vertical and horizontal motifs with no smoke or fog distracting from its almost classical style; this painting is constructed from nature by correcting nature in the way Joshua Reynolds taught at the Royal Academy.

Derain on the other hand was updating Monet’s successful painting in the new Fauve style at the request of his dealer, M. Vollard. The use of strong, non-naturalistic colour freed from its descriptive role and used instead as a mode of expression, complementary colour theory and simplified forms resulted in a more abstract painting. In a letter to a fellow Fauve painter Vladminck, Derain stated, ‘We didn’t do this on purpose solely for the sake of colour. The design runs parallel’. Vladminck painted The Seine at Chatou [5] the same year as Derain made The Pool of London and we can see the same strong, non-naturalistic colours and juxtaposition of complementary colours in both paintings.

Interestingly the link between Monet and Derain is not included in Alfred H. Barr’s famous flowchart. Further evidence that periodisation of styles can be a simplification evidenced by selective choice of examples.

M. Vollard’s involvement in the commissioning of Derain’s Pool of London, dictating both subject matter and style, ties in to Svetlana Alpers comments linking of stylistic labels and value, ‘ the art market…drives us on in stylistic placing. Often the value of an object depends on assigning it a ‘stylistic’ identity’. It is reasonable to suggest that the dealer’s aim was to maximise the worth of his painting ,and that he had buyers in mind.

It is clear that style based art history with its formalist focus and Western-centric viewpoint is insufficient to explore the myriad arts throughout global human history. The historical context of production, the social functions of use and its changing reception over time are all legitimate areas of enquiry that add to our knowledge and understanding of art. Art history is moving towards a more holistic method, it is a multidisciplinary field and stylistic analysis is but one of many methods open to art historians in their examination and analysis of works of art. Art is not a ‘glittering mirror’ reflecting history, and it is important to be aware of, and compensate for, limitations in stylistic analysis; but as a vehicle for close looking, for description rather than judgement, and used in conjunction with contextual, social and if appropriate scientific analysis, it brings us closer to the art work and allows us to experience what is unique about visual art.

The impact of Art today and through the years has interesting takeaways to it when it’s being discussed. Art history identifies works of art and concepts by focusing heavily on the particular context or setting in which the work of art was created in its political, social, cultural, and economic settings. Oftentimes, if people were asked, what are the impacts and contributions of Art through the years? they would provide an answer historically, socially, economically, and politically. Why you may ask? because all these ideas are connected and have had big influences on Art through the years. You get to think of different ideas and answers from these lists I’ve mentioned, because of their impacts, contributions, and influences on art.

In our perspective of art today, how can we see the art’s impact globally? when art history and the global challenge of art are being discussed, it leads to the main question “Is art history global?” because the point is to see if we can tell and recognize, if art history is for everybody to acknowledge. The answer would be yes, but we must remember only where it’s applied or in that certain field because it still recognizes the limits of the existing standards and seeks to begin elsewhere or to pay attention to a different variety of materials that constitute both the global and the historical arts.

The importance of asking or having knowledge if art should be globally recognized, let’s us discipline or adhere ourselves from respecting the limits and policies to it, and for us to state that art history is global, we must acknowledge its origins and facts for us to showcase and send a piece of clear information. According to Dr. Robert Glass, the practice in the discipline of art history evolved in Europe during colonial times. (roughly the 15th to the mid-20th century). And the greatest social innovation facing art history today is globalism. As our world becomes more interconnected, understanding different cultures, and knowing that diversity is important. Art history, as the tale of exceptional artifacts from a wide variety of cultures, has a role in developing these skills. (2020) Also, to help art history globally, innovators these days use digital media and the internet to develop, disseminate and interrogate art historical information, they can help shape the future of the discipline.

If we study the influences of Spain and America and study the background information of colonial modernity, it has a big impact and contributions on Art in the economy of the Philippines. We were introduced to the construction of colonial infrastructure modernity that depended heavily on iron and steel, from the required materials in the industrial era. Colonial infrastructure and public works have taken shape, under the guise of the Spanish colonial government, and According to Gerard Lico & Mary Delia Tomacruz, the infrastructures were in the form of portals, highways, bridges, lighthouses, rivers, sewerage networks, piped water supply, telegraph cables, rail and streetcar networks, and electrical power plants – all of which comply with the new and leading-edge technology available in that time. (2015) A change from Spanish to American colonial rule at the turn of the century produced a propitious atmosphere for the construction boom in which reinforced concrete has become the material of selection. Export of new construction technology from the United States was sustained by the infrastructure program.

During or after direct colonial rule, offer access to brief transnational images of the fugitive and ephemeral displacement, dispersal, and relocation of intellectuals and ordinary people, which emphasize cultural differences in their diaspora experience. According to Maria Luisa Torres Reyes, diasporas are complex and unpredictable in today’s globalized conditions and imaginaries, since the sense of place and position in which diasporic interactions are understood has become fluid, uncertain, even argued, and no longer a fixed and stable space. (2017) In her research paper, the essential focus was to learn the exploration of how the individual, a built entity, is formed by modern influences, such as the diaspora experience. Through the formal composition of the novel, the dynamic interface between migration and the creation of individual identity is explored in the light of the effect of such powers on the constitution or self-reconstruction.

During the time under the Marcos government, the development of the Philippines was widely conceived and includes economic policy in the 1960s and 1970s and its massive cultural infrastructure spending as part of social growth and ‘fulfill capacity’ Of the human personality. According to Patrick Flores, In 1974, the Marcos government economist clarified that the growth of the Philippine economy included the reorganization of the government machinery, the restructuring of the tax and tariff systems as well as finance banking and business, the liberalization of foreign investment, the expansion of exports, the local dispersal of industries and the intensification of labor manufacturing processes, among others. (2017) Development in this situation is linked to Political economy and the aesthetic value of nation-building, meaning, and scale of the formative.

If we talk about some of the influential artists through the years on the impact of art, I’d introduce Marcel Duchamp a French-American painter as part of the most influential artists, specifically in the 1960s. He rose to true prominence and unparalleled fame in the twentieth century Marcel Duchamp was a fresh kind of modern artist of the twentieth century. Two essential moments in Marcel Duchamp’s life are both related to the memory of his departures. According to Marcus Moore, his comments on the sources of ready-made works of art — the mass-produced everyday objects that he first selected in Paris in 1913-1914, and then, after leaving New York in 1915, he found other examples. In interviews, he referred to the readymade as a ‘happy idea’ but the material artifacts or objects, portray and embody Duchamp’s departure from his home (T.J. Demos, 2007). (2011)

Art helps us identify with one another that expands our notion from local to global. Historically, socially, economically, and politically speaking, art throughout the year helps us appreciate intuition, complexity, and innovation, and actively come up with new ideas. Art is an analytical study of objects in their historical evolution and their stylistic aspects with the use of genre, architecture, shape, and style. According to Lumen, Art conveys political, religious, and philosophical concepts and judgments that emerge from the artist’s context as much as they do from his or her artistic impulse. Some of the contextual factors that form artists and their work are their educators and the pressures of previous styles; their audiences and their expectations; their viewers; and their general cultural-economic, and political environment. (2020)

In many aspects, the backbone of art over the years is the celebratory timeline of beautiful pieces of artworks commissioned by religious or government intuitions or wealthy individuals, that helped impact or contribute to art historically, socially, economically, and politically.

References

1. What is art history and where is it going? (article) | Khan Academy. (2020). Retrieved 21 October 2020, from https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-art-history/start-here-apah/intro-art-history-apah/a/what-is-art-history
2. (2020). Retrieved 21 October 2020, from https://ovpaa.up.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ESPASYO-6-full-download.pdf
3. Reyes, M. (2017). Itinerant Figures: Textual Mobilities in Fiction’s Diasporic Turn. Kritika Kultura, 0(28), 190-197. Retrieved from https://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/index.php/kk/article/view/KK2017.02809/2416
4. Flores, P. (2017). “Total Community Response”: Performing the Avant-garde as a Democratic Gesture in Manila. Southeast Of Now: Directions In Contemporary And Modern Art In Asia, 1(1), 13-38. DOI: 10.1353/sen.2017.0001
5. (2020). Retrieved 21 October 2020, from http://memoryconnection.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/MarcusMoore1.pdf
6. Historical Context | Boundless Art History. (2020). Retrieved 21 October 2020, from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-arthistory/chapter/historical-context/

When Duchamp entered his ‘Fountain’ to the Society of Independent Artists in 1917, it was rejected as it was not deemed art. Dadaism responded in outcry, and ever since the progression of art has been in doubt as Duchamp inspired artists to explore the bounds of visual culture. Consequently, art has moved in unprecedented directions and created new questions: Why do we use visual means to express ideas? Who dictates taste? Or ultimately, what constitutes art? Considering answers to enquiries like these is a central incentive for studying the history of art. The scope of my enthusiasm for art has been limited to making for a long time, but in school I have found pleasure in both the classroom and studio and within these, it is noticeable that society is becoming increasingly visual. Technological advance allows for more graphic stimulation than ever; communicating ideas and critically engaging with visual sources are vital skills in this new culture. Navigating social contexts whilst writing clearly about such issues adds to the transferable proficiency that an art history degree will expand.

At the RA’s Summer Exhibition, I typically find the juxtaposition of an acclaimed artist’s work with that of an amateur striking, demonstrating the importance of curation. Similarly at the National Gallery, understanding how art is catalogued is fruitful: the placement of Stubbs’ ‘Whistlejacket’ can be seen through the many glass doorways before it, altering its meaning as a result. At the Royal Scottish Academy, I saw Bridget Riley’s exhibition that explores her influences of impressionism which result in op-art. In an informative interview with Sir John Leighton, Riley explains how she puts formal qualities ‘through their paces’ with agentive pictorial elements to reach abstraction. These visits have familiarised me with the process of critically thinking about art, its organisation and capital. John Berger’s ‘Ways of Seeing’ explores the notion that image holds more status than word: one pictorial essay explores how the female body has become a sexualised object in western society, showing a graphical influence in portraying issues. Grayson Perry multimodally conveys similar debates in ‘Playing to the Gallery’. The most curious of these was the idea that art has been overruled by monetary value, as Perry quoted Greenberg’s claim that it is ‘tied to money by an umbilical cord of gold’. In ‘Art History: A Very Short Introduction’, Dana Arnold takes a wider view, focusing less on the value of art and more so on the major debates in the discipline. Within these, I noticed links to Berger’s work in her dismissal of patriarchy.

To relate philosophical ideas to art, I read Camus’ existentialist work, ‘The Outsider’. It explores themes of indifference and meaningless in the human condition, mirroring Duchamp’s ideas that reject logic in society, instead highlighting universal irrationality. Likewise, I have found Aristotle’s notion of empiricism apparent in my own art. Practising drawing typifies his idea that knowledge is developed by repetition, which is clear in my individual work. This has also led me to obtain visual sensitivity by appreciating the creative process, contextually aiding the exploration of art history. Aside from my own artistic pursuit, pleasure sought from verbal methods has led me to establish my blog: The Black Sketchbook, a journal in which I voice my ideas surrounding art. As Head of House and a school prefect, I have learnt the value of commitment, communication and camaraderie. Despite not being a natural sportsman, I have attempted to apply this attitude on the games pitch in inter-house competitions. Realising that my aspirations lie in the academic world of art, a degree in art history would equip me with expertise and aptitude to achieve this aim. My current experience in the field has been compelling and I trust a degree will provide the challenge of better understanding this copious subject.