From Paintings you Must See before You Die by Stephen Farthing.

This is a response my tutor’s Assignment 1 report and a first step to finding my voice. I noticed that from 1900 the paintings suddenly got a lot more interesting so I decided to photograph all the ones that made me go… wow!!!! And see if I could see a pattern.

This will be ongoing…

First meeting of the regional group in a proper venue. I set it in motion last year and helped to start it… my logo… so quite a proud moment that we now have over 30 members in our Facebook group, a room, a tutor and 12 attendees.

The tutor’s talk about how she had worked with a neurosurgeon was interesting but the talk about being open to new ideas was a bit basic – that’s what the whole degree is about – as was the exercise. I felt sorry for the pike in the video who starved to death because he wouldn’t adapt to changed circumstances (he could now catch the fish but didn’t because he’d taught himself he couldn’t and wouldn’t change his ideas)… and as an actor all my work is collaborating… and I couldn’t find anywhere boring to write about. But my feeling of the meeting is that people found it useful and enjoyed it.

It was quite interesting looking at other students work but I would more have enjoyed hearing about how the different disciplines approach art, as different from painting and the context of the exercises on show. It can be a bit of a thin feedback on craft skills rather than addressing the underlying strengths and weaknesses of the art and what the creator was trying to achieve.

More interesting was hearing about the structure of the course (great to have a tutor on hand) and the different demands at the different levels and specifically how the level 3 student approached her work.

I brought part of a research project to try to get feedback to my ideas and generate a debate – I love language and debates – which is a great way of clarifying your ideas. But although there were a few polite comments  the debate didn’t really take off. Generally, I felt there was more interest in the finished products and how ‘good’ a students work was rather than the underlying concepts.

It was great to meet people and feel I was part of a body of students. We’re planning some sketching walks which will be very useful and a great way of getting to know people.

 

I love the work of Pissaro:

The Red Roofs

This reminds me of Cezanne… the blockiness and earthy colours… and in a strange way Whistler’s Mother, which though ostensibly a painting of his mother is almost a geometric abstraction.

However, here, I think the compositional elements blend with the colouration to produce both a studied and immediate painting, which you can stand before as if you are on the scene. And yet, there is a nagging voice (maybe about the perfection of design or carefully built up stubby brushstrokes) – or maybe just the knowledge it was studio painted – that this is in some way a study.

Although on the surface it is bathed in immediacy it lacks the freshness, looseness and vital spark of Summer air that  would take me to the spot and carries with it a whiff of intellectualism.

Wide ranging and interesting discussion which helped me towards what I think about this complex problem. The only conclusions seemed to be that nobody wanted censorship because of the morals of the artist and everybody needed to make their own mind up.

Interestingly, as in the case of Michael Jackson and Kevin Spacey their work is effectively being censored as the BBC won’t play Michael Jackson’s and Kevin Spacey’s TV shows have been taken off air.

With the caveat that there are exceptions, and it is an emotional as well as an intellectual response, and there are many shades of grey, my opinion is that I think that the art is separate from the artist. So, a person who rapes and murders can produce great art and we should not destroy their art because of their behaviour as their art stands independently of its creator.

However, just as I would not buy any goods off a known paedophile, as I would not want to condone their action or give them money, I would not ‘consume’ art from anybody who committed murder or rape.

If the art had already been made, and they wouldn’t profit from it, then I would listen or look at it.

I feel part of the conflation of artist’s behaviour with their art is the artist as product/luxury item or brand; be that Andy Warhol, David Bowie or Damien Hirst. In those cases their personality (even if carefully manufactured and bearing little relationship to the real person) is part of their art.

The artists intention was that this was a sentimental memory of childhood (embedded or intentional meaning) yet it instantly became a superstar painting for 19th Century Christians (negotiated meaning) representing their fervent Christian beliefs.

It also succeeded despite Millet’s controversial ‘brand’ as a realist painter because the painting was taken as a stand-alone work of art, not as a branded product.

This is a great painting and in a style that really appeals.

What struck me is how like a Goya giant it is in feel… and then reading the blurb how threatening this appeared in the political context of the recent French revolution.

Before this peasants had been quaint picturesque non threatening amusement for sophisticated city dwellers, this peasant is huge, unidealised, threatening and dominates the painting like a classical deity… and is potentially equally powerful. Also, it may not be intentional (but is certainly not accidental) but he is faceless like the revolutionary masses the conservatives feared.

It’s also a perfect example of a painting in its time as it got instant notoriety for being part of the realist movement, a new artistic movement. So it has of historic meaning and context, a slightly unclear directed meaning (as it wasn’t clear what Millet intended) and a new negotiated meaning… today it may make us think more of a nostalgic past or rural unemployment than a revolutionary threat from the emptied out countryside.

Interestingly, we don’t get new movements but we do get artists who gain notoriety by doing something different like the 1980’s New York graffiti artists or Tracy Emin tent with all her lovers… so, newness and notoriety are still good for business.

1851: Value plummeted (though it enhanced reputation of women painters because it was wrongly assigned for so long… they must be better than ‘men’ thought) when reassigned from David to one of his female students (the painting hadn’t changed)… the critics then started seeing feminine elements, so they re-positioned it.

What it shows:

(1) Early example of value of the brand… ie) David’s much stronger than Charpentier – so artistic./social and financial value not intrinsic to aesthetic qualities of the painting but extrinsic to the public classification.

(2) That artistic dialogue and criticism coalesces around a consensus and is not honest/objective. It would have been possible for critics to say that although this is assigned to David it unique in that it has feminine qualities but criticism change to reflect status quo… raises questions about the role of criticism.

(3) When I saw it did not look anything like a David painting, much more romanticized, the style was completely different… so why didn’t the ‘experts’ see it?

As students we should trust and be honest to our own judgement not follow consensus for consensus sake.