Thursday, February 5, 2009

Ode To the Simple Things

There are many elements in nature which have held great value since my youth. I often marvel at the beauty of a humming bird and its ability, to appear to float in mid air. As a child I thought humming birds were fairies! I also remember catching ‘lightening bugs’ on warm summer days in Ohio. And later returning, as an adult to find out the insects were almost extinct in the area, because of their use in scientific experiments.

If more of us could maintain the appreciation of nature and the simple things, which youthful innocence creates; creativity would flourish in the larger populace. I don’t think of an artist as only one, whose medium is acrylic paint, or watercolors, but also a computer for a software engineer and their ability to create a user experience; or an empty lot, of a real estate developer and the visualization necessary to develop a community.

Fielder explains that “because their nature is richer and more highly refined, are more receptive to the visible world”. “Refinement”, only comes with spending time, studying one’s subject or craft. For those in a cubical or experiencing the daily responsibilities of life, this is not always easily obtained or valued. So like a knife we can become dull if not sharpened.

Fielder discusses sensation, which naturally occurs with an individual’s perception of an object, but more importantly the intellect that is required, as an artist to control and move beyond the natural sensation.

With creating one must maintain there is never one way of thinking or viewing, as with cognition is abstraction. Once one comes to a conclusion, there is always a path leading to a new direction of discovery. Thus creativity will continue to expand.

Fiedler's Judgement

I was struck by Fiedler's attitude towards people that "lack the organs by which they can grasp the qualities of things." He clearly states the artist is a rare individual that possesses mental faculties that most people lack.
He also takes on science during a time when science "penetrates all educated circles", and says that science can never have all the answers. We seem to still be living in such a time.
When looking at objects we tend to be neglectful of their individual peculiarities and instead base our thoughts on generalizations of the object. He says we only have to remove an object from its familiar surroundings to prove that our visual knowledge of it was lacking. I think the most clear example of this is Duchamp's "Fountain."

The artist does not merely try to make his vision concrete, but is "forced" by his nature to make art. But art making is not a process of imitation according to Fiedler, it's not mere copying of outward appearances. Rather it's an attempt to make visible the artist unique understanding of the world. I have heard many artists say that the reason they created something was simply because they wanted to see it for themselves.
Artists minds are not always in possession of clear understanding but rather it comes in flashes of consciousness, or a moment of inspiration that the artist then struggles to make visible. Fiedler states that a work of art is not the total creative activity of an artist but a "fragmentary expression of something that cannot be totally expressed." As an artist, I think he's on target with this idea.

"A work of art is not an expression of something which can exist just as well without this expression.

 
In this article, Fiedler is looking at nature and man's (woman's) expression of it and how we judge that expression (object) the artist has made. He does not want humans to respond to nature or to objects merely with sensation. This is reserved for those who are less informed or have mental shortcomings or maintain themselves with manual occupations. 
"Art itself is a process by which the mental possessions of man are immediately enriched."
 Art is not to be about imitation but about revealing the essence. It must be grasped both mentally and passionately. A great deal of this article is an argument for the cognitive powers to foster independent thinking and to give the artist and viewer a more powerful tool of observation and understanding to both the essence and to the process rather than to merely react.  
 Fiedler also argues that technical skills are not enough to judge a work of art, "technical skills serves solely the mental process." We must never have a fixed code when we judge works of art.
 How then do we judge  (or give value to ) a work of art? Is there specific criteria? "Understanding must follow achievements of the artist, it can never precede them."
We can not have a fixed set of laws by which to look at objects because our understanding of them is always in flux. New imaginations give rise to new ideas and new ways of seeing.  
 He also states that, "Art that exists at all does not require the appreciation of being said to be good. However, it can never be bad." It is the process that matters. But Fiedler ends chapter 2 by saying that in some eras, "Art falls into the hands of less gifted, makes no important mental progress and is unable to offer any real value." It seems to me this latter statement is a judgement that perhaps he is also arguing against. After all, a new era may be acting under a new imagination and a new set of ideas.
 

Back and forth as it may seem

So, "mental mastery of the world" sounds like it has a relationship with insomnia, and headaches. Sensations are necessary, yet are needed to be risen above to become talented?

I would like to agree with Fiedler, that perception is needed for sensation. Hey! Look, there is a frog. Frogs are green, and eat flies; therefore I know everything about them. But, I need to know all frogs are green. Therefore, I know nothing of frogs.

After reading this passage two times and skimming through it again, to see if I could agree, disagree, or dissect something, I found that the more science is used to solve the equation of art and the world, the harder it is for me to see what the purpose is in a solution. If nothing can happen, after something happens, yet we seek experience, then experience or what comes from it (language), would be the only thing that exists. "From that which is seen to that which is a concept of the seen" (translators, pg. 31), so the frog is a frog because we communicate that it is a frog, but that is a concept? If what I got out of this reading makes some sort of abstract cognition of itself, then I must unlearn this, so I can experience abstract thought again, and be able walk around as an artist. Talent, I think, is the ability to work hard.

thinking of form

I think the diversity of the art form language is related to that of the idea and sense in the artist’s mind. The form doesn’t necessarily follow the objective truth, because one’s feeling might not be same as the reality. For example, in Michelangelo’s sculpture work, in order to express the spirit of heroism, he modeled the female body with bulky volume and muscles, which is commonly founded in the male body. This is contrary to the slender and gentleness features of females. I agree we may apply the scientific attitude to our art creation, but we shouldn’t interpret the art like a scientist since the art is to express thoughts and philosophy while the science is to match the rules of the Nature. And the human’s mind is not always related to the reality. “In either case from is conceived as an ever-flowing source of ideas of motion.” I don’t entirely agree on this opinion. I think any form language ought to be based on certain understanding of the object. The pure imaginary idea is prone to be in vain. To make a human body sculpture, we need to have the basic knowledge about the body proportions and anatomy. Then we can express our feelings through the recognition of the object. If we know nothing about the basic structure of human body, we will be just like children drawing a cartoon or a simple shape of the body, without knowing the true beauty inside the body and expressing our true feelings.

The debate continues



Joshua Reynolds embraced the rationale of Neo-classicism which was promoted as the antithesis of the decadently sensual art of Rococo. In the late 1700s, he wrote in his Discourses, "in the midst of the highest flights of fancy or imagination, reason ought to preside from first to last."



In 1808, William Blake begged to differ. He retorted, "If this is True, it is a devlish Foolish Thing to be an Artist." (Caps all Blake's)

This debate continues with Vischer (whose writing we discussed last week) and Conrad Fiedler. Contesting the prevailing sensual attitude in aesthetics that was dominant in his time, Fiedler makes an appeal to the interest of the intellect in judging works of visual art.

Although I still cannot seem to get a full grasp of the slippery term "Gestalt-formation", it appears that Fiedler is arguing against the precepts of personal and social "yardstick" which govern contemporary aesthetic experience while it serves to simultaenously obstruct comprehension/cognition of the artist's intention.

Fiedler wrote his treatise in 1876 only 3 short years after Vischer's. The latter decades of 19th century European visual culture was indeed a tumultuous period of diverse styles. The prolonged period of Romanticism was being challenged by the advocates of Realism. It confounded matters further when artists like Whistler who aligned painting with the higher construct of music adamantly defended the autonomy of his work as "art for art's sake".







Perhaps it was precisely this shifting ground that provided Hildebrand the impetus to expand Fiedler's discourse into a scientific basis for re-claiming the position of sculpture. Yet, in reading Hildbrand, his discussion of "stereoscopic vision" and "kinesthetic ideas" suggested by the "visual projection", I am reminded of another past debate on similiar theme by Leonardo and Michelangelo. The debate ensues on...

Julie