Modernism in Art History: An Outline Pointing to the Future

Over the last three days, I have been reading and re-reading Christopher L.C.E. Whitcomb's excellent essay on Modernism in the art history timeline. He begins and ends his article with references to Suzi Gablik's Has Modernism Failed? (1984) with her view towards the hypothetical conclusion that "the end of Art is near". In particular, she asserts that if we as an art community and society hold that "anything can be considered art", then Innovation is no longer possible or desireable. I am not sure I see the connection. I have considered it axiomatic for quite some time that "anything created by man is formed for the purpose and use of man." That would even include art as an Occupation, art as a Statement, art as an Aesthetic, or art as a Recreation. Different purposes.

I liked the model of "Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis" propounded in the paper and it appears to be suitable for the dynamic of art's social-political impact throughout history. Does Art only express and reflect current events through the eyes of the artist or can Art Change the World? Action or reaction? How much is this a chicken-and-the-egg syndrome?

The proposed objective of Modernism is the "creation of a better society". There are two alternative Antithetical reactions to the Thesis "society is better": (1) society is actually better or (2) society is not better. To make a judgement on that issue is a matter of opinion, is it not? If society has reached its epitome and reached the ideal of human actualization and full potential, then the influence of art has been accomplished. Perhaps then, Art as Celebration would become a genre. If society still has room for continuous improvement, then Art can still have a potential impact on creating a better world through Art as Statement.

Perhaps the Synthesis is that (1) the world isn't completely better if Artists need to earn a living with Art as Occupation; (2) Perhaps the world isn't better if Artists want to Change the World through Art as Statement; (3) Perhaps for some but not all recreational Artists, Art as Recreation is an escape and avoidance from other less relaxing and more taxing endeavors; or (4) Perhaps Art as Aesthetic allows us to portray Beauty and Truth as noble ideals in a world that isn't quite as Utopian.

So if Art isn't ended, where is Art heading in the future and what Innovation might be on the horizon? If we accept the Thesis that "Art is Original Expression" and contains symbols, icons, and meaning that reflect who the Artist is at a point in time and culture, then Art is Never Done. Rather, it reflects current social-political dynamics for the Artist as Creator.  For instance, mention is made in the article about Earth Art and Performance Art that redefines Art into genre that is difficult to categorize into historical genre. Each of these types is Art that is Fleeting and Momentary. A sign of the times that reflects an Artist's Worldview of Expression.

Perhaps then, I could propose that we would expect to see the (continued) influence of a number of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis dynamics in Art in the future reflecting current social-political influences:

• Western Cultural Imperative on Third World Countries versus Emerging Global Cultures and Diversity
• Individual Imperatives for Freedom versus Rule of Authority and Tyranny
• Bipolar Schisms, Separateness, and Isolation versus Unity and Connectedness
• Haves versus Have-Nots 
• Art for the Elite versus Art for and of the Masses
• Fundamental Religions versus Cultism versus Atheism versus Nihilism
• Big Government versus Big Business versus Big Religion versus Individual Self 
• Centralized Power versus De-centralized Power
• Original Art versus Copy Art (The China Influence)
• Control versus Chaos
• Quality of Life versus Survival
• Found Art with Recycling-Upcycled Materials versus Traditional Media
• Charitable Giving versus Art for Investment Return
• Disenfranchised Extremism Topics versus Mainstream Art Topics
• Great Master Works versus Art as Occupation versus Daily Painting Initiative versus Amateur Art

Bad Art: A Threshold of Acceptance in the Creative Pursuit

Although I find the controversy of who is an Artist versus Not-An-Artist compelling, it is also interesting to me to examine the concept and controversy of Good Art versus Bad Art. There is even a place where we can examine exemplars and non-exemplars directly. It is curious to note the presence of the Museum of Bad Art (MOBA) as a place where Artifacts considered "bad art" are curated.  Some of the Artifacts are more representative or "popular" than others to illustrate the genre.

Photo Courtesy: Mama and Babe - Museum of Bad Art (MOBA)

The site provides numerous illustrations for the Good-Bad controversy in what might be considered the extreme end of the range. Society continues to reinforce a strong link between the Artist and their created Artifacts. Yet reviewers seem to be willing to assert that any Artifact that expresses an Artist's creativity is still Art. That's a courteous and respectful position. It is evident in this MOBA venue that Art's appraisal by reviewers is still quite Subjective even in this lower range of acceptability. As bad as an Artifact may appear to be in the majority opinion, there may still be individual reviewer's who assert "It's not that bad and I like it for such-and-such a reason". There are Differences of opinion. Perhaps things to learn about Art and Humanity. How people respond to the value of Respect for Diversity is revealing about the human condition.  I find it useful evidence to support the assertion that Freedom of Expression in Art's Review as well as Freedom of Expression in Art's Creation is an important element in the Artistic Endeavor.  And further, to be respectful, the "Artifact tells us something about the Artist but not everything" and the "role of Artist tells us something about the Person but not everything". I would generally but humbly assert that the Creation tells a lot about the Creator. But probably not everything. So it's not the Final Judgment.

The MOBA Artifacts are also interesting in what they say about the role of Originality in Art. Originality alone is apparently not sufficient to aid an Artifact on its road to becoming acceptable nevermind a Masterpiece. And yet Originality is a desireable and perhaps key attribute many would associate with Good Art and with Art's greatest Masterpieces.

So how do we go about to create and retain Bad Art? Some potential reasons why some Artists fail to reach the threshold and rise above the level of achieving an acceptable art form in their Artifacts might include one or more of the following attributes of Artistic Insight, Formulation, and Expression:

• Failure of Observation
• Failure of Composition
• Failure of Technique
• Failure of Imagination
• Failure of Frame or Installation
• Failure to Balance or Trade Artistic Freedom and Artistic Control
• Failure to Destroy after a Failed Effort or Exploration

I am reminded though that, historically, the Impressionists were allegedly subject to loud and vocal criticism, giggles and guffaws, and ostracism when their work was first shown in public over these listed failures as criticism. Over a number of years. Indeed, their efforts required separate venues and locations to show their work since it was rejected by the established art forums. And yet, within their departure from the mainstream lie the roots of Modern Art.

Perhaps in the MOBA Artifacts we are in fact witnessing a very real Artifact that is a bona-fide expression of a somewhat failed Self at a moment in time through failed Art. And it is difficult to view the genuine and real failure of Another in close proximity in the realm of the Connectedness of Humanity. And again, there is a Range of Failure and a Range of Tolerance to it.

Perhaps there is something to be said about the manner in which the Artist allows their effort to contribute to or destroy their potential Reputation and Brand. Perhaps we are witnessing evidence of a type of self-destruction whether intentional or unintentional in that some Humans and some Artists have not yet learned the self-protective mechanisms helpful to either Survival or Growth or Success. Knowing how to identify a dead-end in the Artistic Endeavor or Creative Pursuit, when to destroy an Artifact, and how to preserve one's core Self and/or artistic process and results amidst an environment of experimentation may be indicated. Sometimes we have to just avoid or stop self-destructive behavior. But it may be true that for some Artists, the need for Self-Expression trumps any other consideration even Rejection or Criticism. It may even be true that some successful Artists have destroyed or painted over Original Artifacts that might be deemed Valuable by Others. Again, is this a Mistake, an Error, a Travesty, or a deliberate Freedom of Expression by the Artist?

Perhaps the MOBA Artifacts tell us not so much about the elements surrounding the Artistic Endeavor but more about the elements important to a successful Creative Pursuit. In other words, each of the Artist's that created an Artifact that ended up in the MOBA applied their Life Force and Energy to their participation in their own Artistic Endeavor along their Life's Journey which appears to be a commendable Journey. But for various reasons, their Creative Pursuit may have left something to be desired. Perhaps the MOBA controversy can be evaluated thus: We are not rejecting their choice of the Artistic Endeavor but we reject or may not accept the results of some aspects of their particular Creative Pursuit. More on the Creative Pursuit at a later date.

What Makes a Masterpiece?: The Artist as Philosopher

Another serendipitous borrow from the library was What Makes a Masterpiece? edited by Christopher Dell. A quick scan of the introduction results in numerous keywords and phrases such as "timeless, profound, works of genius, visionary, perfect, transcendental, pinnacle of a creative career, works that define an oeuvre, instantly recognized...." which perhaps are terms that most Viewers of Art would correlate with "Masterpiece" but may be too ambiguous to define or differentiate major from minor works or ordinary works or particularly indicate the future for a Work-In-Progress.

The purpose of a Masterpiece, similar to any Artifact, might be to inform, to entertain, to commemorate, to educate, to reinforce beliefs, and/or to encourage reflection or devotion. Generally, a Masterpiece might portray technical virtuousity, groundbreaking skill, and originality of approach giving some indication that the piece is "On The Edge" of historical normalness in that it ventures into a new arena previously unexplored. It may push into new areas of Insight, develop new Formulations, or Express and Exhibit new Ideas. The book suggests that a Masterpiece reflects value judgements and may well be defined by juxtapositions of the Maker, the Viewers, and the Culture of its Time. Also, a Masterpiece tends to reflect Universal Concepts and Values that become Timeless and therefore could be considered Transcendental.

It's value as a Masterpiece may be related to the quality of the materials and the time to produce the Artifact. Works from the heart, head, and hand of an Artist deemed to be a Master...whether deceased or alive...may be considered to be exceptional and highly valued but may or may not be considered a Masterpiece per se.

This book cites Kenneth Clark in What is a Masterpiece? (1979) indicating that a Masterpiece is both:

• "a confluence of memories and emotions forming a single idea" and
• "a power of recreating traditional forms so that they become expressive of the artist's own epoch and yet keep a relationship with the past"

But I remain unconvinced....based on those two premises alone as distinguishing characteristics of a Masterpiece versus Works Other Than a Masterpiece. Christopher Dell indicates that in Modern art in particular a distinguishing feature of a Masterpiece is less about the quality of the Artistic Formulation or even the resultant Artifact but rather it is "Ideas That Count". Perhaps to stretch that verbiage further, the art "Makes a Difference" or "Changes the World" or has an "Impact on Humanity".

If a Masterpiece is truly timeless, it would reflect not only the Artist's own era and also reach into the foundations of art history and the human experience but I might add the following.... that a Masterpiece....

• Instantiates a New Idea at a Moment in Time thereby adding to the timeless and transcendental universal Aesthetic

Perhaps Kenneth Clark's definition is more appropriate if we say "...forming a single [evolutionary or revolutionary] idea" (italics mine).

So, Dear Reader, we can pick our favorite Artist and review the pieces of the Master that we adore, compare them against these listed criteria, and see how they stack.  What is the New Idea that we venerate for each Masterpiece instantiated at its moment in human history?

Cherubs and Putti: Coypel's Triomphe de Venus (1693)

For the last six months, I have been researching and studying Old Master drawings and Renaissance art. Just a whim really that put me outside my nominal interests for the Victorian era. My wanderlust approach was not necessarily in a deliberate, disciplined way but was a fun roaming of sources following those items that appealed to me in style or content.

Also, during the Fall of 2011, I knew I wanted to produce a stylistic and possible nude work in dry pastels prior to my planned visit to the Degas exhibit in Boston Museum of Fine Arts since I would be viewing many of his works in that media. I became interested in the content of angels, cherubs, and putti because of the holiday season. I selected a small, image from the left-hand side of Noel Coypel's Le Triomphe de Venus (1693) as a source of inspiration.

From that small putti, I developed an 18 inch x 26 inch pastel and framed it for the holidays.

Original Art: Le Triomphe de Venus 01, Copyright James E. Martin 2011

I had completed some fairly small pastel works previously...perhaps considered more Studies than anything of note. In this particular piece, I was fairly well pleased with the synthesis of Inspiration, Insight, and Formulation resulting in the Original Artifact. This was the first time I had produced a pastel of this size and it was very different  for me in content and style. It is my first "nude" so to say. There is some attempt to utilize a Renoir color palette but is timid in that regard because it doesn't go far enough with the brilliance of color value. Backing off the color vigor, though, provides a more serene, ethereal sense consistent with the subject matter. Perhaps.

However, lest I become exalted in any semblance of artistic pride, my first critic..... also known as my wonderful, out-spoken five year old daughter and therefore well-regarded.... entered the house, took one look at the framed work of a nude angel, and pronounced with a loud gutteral belly laugh...."butt crack".... therefore providing an alternative title to the effort. So this is an itsy bit about how Manet might have felt when Luncheon on the Grass aka Le dejeuner sur l'herbe (1863) and Olympia (1865) were introduced in their respective debuts as an artist's statement about Artistic Freedom. Freedom of Expression does indeed go both ways!

So much for the lofty heights of artistic Aesthetics. The Artistic Endeavor and the Dialog continues!

To Be or Not To Be: The Artist and The Preacher

To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them:

To die, to sleep
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
That Flesh is heir to? 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished.

To die to sleep,
To sleep, perchance to Dream; Ay, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
That makes Calamity of so long life.

 

Reference: From Hamlet Act 3 Scene 1: Shakespeare

Photo courtesy - Wikimedia Commons

One of Van Gogh's last completed works before committing his self-inflicted fatal injury was At Eternities Gate (Jul 1890).  The title alone reflects his state of mind in the final days of his earthly treadpath revealed here as perhaps he wrestles with "shuffling off his mortal coil" and crossing the one-way threshold into eternity to meet his Maker. From the subject's perspective in the painting, he would see darkness, feel tension in the clenched hands, hear the crackling of the fire, and feel the posture of sitting in the chair.  Only the subject, not the viewer, would ever fully know his internal state of mind.

From the viewer's perspective, there are only three objects of note in the location, the subject, the chair and the fire. I sense anguish and fatigue and indecision in the subject's posture as he wilfully shuts out the light of day by covering his eyes with his own clenched hands as if in a feeble attempt to stop observation of all things, to not look at the viewer, and to stop time. Only from his autobiographical letters are we made aware of his recurring efforts to still the demons of internal mental illness and anguish.  Many of those bouts were incapacitating for his artistic endeavors for longer and longer periods of time creating further anxiety and frustration in direct conflict with his creative pursuit. Because of his theological studies early in life, can we surmise that he may even be in a posture of prayer conversing with and wrestling with his Maker? Earlier in Van Gogh's Still Life with Open Bible (1885), the book is opened to the suffering servant depiction in Isaiah 53:3-5. Is the natural man wrestling with the spiritual man? With thoughts of suicide, the consequences of the irretrievable act in the flesh might be daunting for a Christian believer with an eternity to consider for the final disposition of the human spirit. Heaven or hell? For the natural man, the fire is burning bright in his artistic productions despite his limitations and provides warmth in its proximity but may diminish to embers in the future or die out to dark coals without fuel to continue. But for the spiritual man? Is that a crackling of a symbolic hellfire we hear in the otherwise quiet stillness of the contemplative room?

To Be or Not to Be? THAT IS THE QUESTION. No doubt in my mind. Every moment of every day. And, there is Calamity in so long a life as apportioned to us in fleeting moments. I can respect these things.... along with the diversity of thought from folks who propose that some artist other than Shakespeare created those lines. As Artists, we hope we can change the world amidst its Calamity with our unique hand. Let's create Order from Chaos. Let's create Something Humble or Magnaminous from Nothing. Lets paint. And.....Lord.....please have mercy on us poor sinners and help us all with abundant grace and overflowing mercies. I need more than my talent. Thank you Van Gogh.  ;o)

Future Influence: Can We Start Where Others Have Left Off?

Once upon a time (all great stories start this way).... there was a Dutch artist named Vincent Van Gogh (30 Mar 1853-29 Jul 1890) who eventually became a famous post-Impressionist and was recognized as a leader in what was to become the Modern art movement since many artists were influenced by his style.
Although the Van Gogh WikiBiography provides much fun, I note a few salient points for today:

• Early in his career, Vincent was a theology student in preparation for preaching and church work (1877-1880)
• Vincent was known for his signature bright blue and yellow depictions of paint-heavy expressive brushstrokes
• His life of trials and tribulation as an artist is uniquely well-documented since he maintained a robust correspondence with his younger brother Theo, an art dealer
• He was regarded generally as a loner afflicted with mental illness 
• Brother Theo was a close confidant and Vincent's primary means of financial support
• Vincent cut off his own ear during an argument with the artist Gauguin (1888)
• Vincent's artistic breakthrough occurred in Arles France (1888-1889). With worsening bouts of mental anguish, eventually he was admitted to an insane asylum in Saint-Remy de Provence and was released to work in Auvers-sur-Oise (1890) but he created some his most notable and colorful works during this time 
• Vincent was a proverbial starving artist having made only one sale in his lifetime for a mere pittance
• He allegedly shot himself in the chest in a wheatfield and crawled back to his boarding room
• He died at age 37 in the arms of his brother Theo who arrived from Paris two days after the incident
• According to some art historians, Van Gogh's last executed work left on the easel was Crows in a Wheatfield (Jul 1890)

Photo courtesy - Wikimedia Commons

The sky is a bold turbulent blue and the wheatfields are a golden yellow perhaps whipped by the wind. The roads are brown and green....partly barren and partly verdant. Uncharacteristically, there are two celestial bodies lit on the horizon-a greater and a lesser light. Traversing the rolling hills, I see three roads and possible paths emerging from the viewer's perspective. One is centrally located and approaches the greater light at the distance horizon. It seems to command the viewer's perspective and selection. The remaining two paths surround the golden wheatfields that are ready for harvest. Marauding crows intent upon the harvest are either entering or leaving the field of view in the central portion and upper right hand corner of the landscape....the flock receding to the distant horizon.

In 1996, 106 years after Van Gogh's death, my wife and I had the good fortune during a business trip to Amsterdam to enjoy many of his works now held in the Amsterdam Van Gogh museum.

In 2009, I visited a local high school art show and was inspired by the creative execution of the young artists under the tutelage of the local art teacher. I recall a number of students creating new innovative art work and noted with pleasant surprise that some had also depicted some works of the well-known Impressionists, i.e., Van Gogh and Monet in particular. One young female student had painted Vincent Van Gogh's Crows in a Wheat Field.  I was most impressed with this souvenir of his alleged last painting and I inquired whether I could purchase it but it was not for sale.

It took me about a year of further wanderlust but I was eventually inspired partially by the effort of these local high school artists to renew my artistic endeavors from my own early years. I did not intend to exactly copy the original piece but rather to allow it to influence how I approached my souvenir of the masterpiece. I began my new artistic journey by rendering Crows in a Wheat Field (souvenir 2009). I researched the piece in the literature and with images from the Amsterdam Van Gogh Museum and one sunny, summer day, I set up the easel outdoors and completed the work to my own satisfaction.  The result is then a memory and recollection of what I saw in the original and how I feel about Van Gogh and the meaning of his life's journey and work.

Opinion: What does the Van Gogh painting Crows in a Wheatfield mean to me? It is a somber, sober and foreboding piece. Based on his biography, I sense Vincent's battle between spiritual and worldy imperatives perhaps denoted by the depiction of a greater and lesser light at a distant horizon yet to be reached. As the moon reflects the emitted light of the sun, so the lesser light on the horizon depicts the imperatives of the more worldy human spirit reflecting the greater divine light that is emitted from its source.  The practical demands of choosing an occupation and making his way in the world financially was always at war with his human spirit for a noble and pure life and his spiritual outlook for the divine which included his occupational selections of either artist or Christian preacher. There is more than one perceived path to be taken. One leads to the greater light in the distance. All paths are bathed in the glow of the greater light. All paths include proximity to the potential harvest in the walk-through of financially viable work product or paintings in the field along the way to the horizon. Each path however is both a barren brown and a verdant green denoting some unproductive and also productive work along the trodden path in the earthy soil. Vincent was never economically successful at either of his selected occupational roles although his resultant artistic works are prolific and eventually became known as rare and valuable masterpieces after his death.

In painting one of his last works, he represents that the seeds of his artistic endeavors have been planted in the world, the crop is golden and mature and his life's work and oeuvre were in the hands of his brother Theo, and the portfolio is therefore ready for harvest at some future time. Oddly, there is no human in the painting representing a farmer trodding the path nor reaping the harvest but rather we have a flock of maurauding crows from the world at large that steal at the ripe kernels of the finished paintings at the peak of the harvest. Vincent left his works to Theo.  His last words spoken according to Theo were...."The sadness will last forever". Theo died six months after his brother. It was Theo's wife who would later consolidate and process the collection of paintings and letters for posterity.

Conclusion: The sources for artistic influence of one's own work can be on a global and local level. The influence may come from historical sources and one's daily life journey. We are connected to others across time and space. We have the opportunity to influence others in the future with our own works. We can paint our future today with our daily occupational, avocational, or recreational work effort.