Artists examining art

There comes a point in some artists lives when their fantastical views of art change, even though they said they never would. A young eighteen year old just starting college goes into their first ever "history of art" lecture ready to absorb as much art as they can. It doesn't matter what genre of art, what style of painting. They need to know all of it. They learn the context and history of paintings they previously never spent much time trying to understand, and their inspiration and fascination with art only grows. It grows so much they are near bursting, ready to put their own art into the world and hope it holds it own to works they have studied. However this must be postponed, they must develop their skills and techniques first and foremost, and age and experience to hopefully find deeper context for their work.

Fast forward 6 years: the art history classes are over, and it'll be a life long journey developing skills. They go to an art museum and skim through the rooms, trying to look at all the art, but only really stopping in front of a few. They follow artists on instagram, great artists, maybe too many artists, the constant posts of new art overwhelming, and then underwhelming. What is happening here? Why are we making quick judgements of art now? Didn't those art history classes get us appreciating all types of artwork? It's a weird overexposure of art without actually ever being exposed to it in person.

How large are these works of art on instagram? Sure some may include that information in the description, but to see it in a room, see how it changes in different lighting, the intensity of the colors, see how it changes the atmosphere of the space it's in... but instead there's a quick judgement that happens, we click like or don't and continue scrolling. Is it because the constant flow of images online has reduced art to the same level of a picture of someone's brunch? Are we artists still just trying to absorb as much art as possible in the way that we did early in our art educations?

I write this not condemning art being posted online, but in hopes that artists who are feeling jaded about art will remember the passion that they started out with. An artist who really wants to develop their art needs to experience more art in person, or at least a well published art book with quality images. Observe and study the application of the paint in works you admire. Don't just quickly look at something and decide if you like it or not.

Wasn't an artist once thought to be someone who saw the beauty in things? Well if thats the type of artist you identify with, then we should remember to find beauty in other artist's works as well. Is there a painter you really don't like? I recommend reading up on them. Sure not every painter or painting needs context. Some great art stands perfectly up on its own, but does that make the ones that need more explaining worse? The variety of people and art in the world is too complex and vast to be filed into one hierarchy. That painting that you find needs more explanation, to another makes perfect sense. Take Wassily Kandinsky for example, he has never been on my list of favorite artists, for whatever reason. His works that come to mind when I think of him, are "Tableau à la tache rouge " or "Impression III (concert)". However recently I found out he was thought to have synesthesia, a condition where one can hear color the way one hears a sound, and he created a lot of his work about music he heard. This doesn't move him up in my favorite artists list-- I think we all have preference when it comes to art. But it does make me more interested and willing to observe his work a little more closely.

If you still need some help tapping into your youthful wonderment, there's a excellent story from Victoria Finlay's book " The Brilliant History of Color in Art". This book gives history to many pigments - most not produced anymore, but there are a few still commonplace colors in there such as yellow orcher, french ultramarine, ect. In her chapter on "gold" she goes back to 834 A.D. and it's use in religious art. She talks about how

"It's easy to look at icons and the medieval paintings and think how simple they are. They don't have shadows, and most don't have a sense of perspective, or distance within the painting either. The colored pigments aren't blended with each other on the palette; they're applied pure or mixed with white in a series of tiny strokes."

Of course paintings with perspective and values had been done in history before this time by the Greeks and Romans, so it's not like it was an unknown concept. So why create these flat paintings? She explains this:

"The answer is that icon artists didn't use shadows or perspective because they felt they didn't need them. Icons weren't supposed to be copies of anything in this world. They were meant to be representations, not realistic depictions."

She goes on to talk about how they were also created in a time before electricity and how they were meant to be viewed by candlelight. The layers of paint on top of the gold leaf that were slightly scratched away by the artist gave depth to the painting because the light would scatter and give the illusion it shimmered. So if you ever find yourself at an art museum in those rooms filled with religious art and you're becoming bored or disinterested, try to imagine seeing it by candlelight the way it was originally intended.

So when it comes to artists examining art, I guess my title is more of a question. Do we even still examine it? Or are we just looking? And if we are examining it, what are we asking? Are we asking about the composition composed, the use of value or color, the application of the paint? Are we asking about the context or history? I find trying to rekindle passion when looking at other artists' work helps me observe mine more critically and see how far I need to go. I think its important to also remember you aren't doing art just to sell it. To me, art is an image meant to be experienced, so hopefully the viewer can tap into the artist's depiction and see as an artist would.

*Book listed in post: "The Brilliant History of Color in Art" by Victoria Finlay

*Book recommended for more inspiration: "History of Modern Art" by H.H. Arnason