All you artists, I have a question.

[Ishmael]

The other day I was at an art gallery, just looking around. There were some reproductions there of the old 'masters. and I happened to be looking at a repro of a Renoir. Well, I took my glasses off and looked around and damn, the world stared to look like the painting.

So, as a point of discussion. Is it possible that some of the styles of painting came about because that is exaclty what the artist saw? That the had an occular disorder that caused them to see the world exactly as they painted it?

No conclussion on my part, just a thought.

Ishmael

 

[Horny Hippie Girl]

I suppose anything is possible. Art is a reflection of how the artist views the world, but I am doubting if it is usually that literal.

 

[GreenEyedGirl]

Monet was essentially blind by the end of his career, and his paintings reflect that. I think you have a valid point there.

 

[Vilac]

The other day I was at an art gallery, just looking around. There were some reproductions there of the old 'masters. and I happened to be looking at a repro of a Renoir. Well, I took my glasses off and looked around and damn, the world stared to look like the painting.

So, as a point of discussion. Is it possible that some of the styles of painting came about because that is exaclty what the artist saw? That the had an occular disorder that caused them to see the world exactly as they painted it?

No conclussion on my part, just a thought.

Ishmael

I suppose it's a very real point of conjecture that an artist's work is based strictally on his/her own sight limitations. At first blush it makes sense to me.

What I've always rather had a soft spot for was pointalism. There is just something intriguing about an entire piece made up of dots alone. I've done a few in this medium....and each one I tend to like better and better.

Nonetheless...thanks for the mental bubblegum, Ish!
V~

 

[Olivianna]

That the had an occular disorder that caused them to see the world exactly as they painted it?

Now that would be fucked up, and have more to do with a neurological condition. Do you mean to ask if artists painted the world exactly as they saw it?
If that was your question, I would first argue that Impressionists were not necessarily interested in painting what they saw as it appeared to the human eye , but rather were interested in exploring ideas of motion, light, and atmosphere. The Post-Impressionists (Seurat, Cezanne) really pioneered the study of optics as it relates to paint.
The point made about Monet is certainly valid - most certainly because it is a testament to Impressionists' interest in challenging the way art was created (and thus a challenge to the Academy) and the way we (the viewer) conceived of composition, color, nature, etc. Thus, while Renoir works may appear to be inspired by bad eyesight, such a conclusion would undermine the whole basis of Impressionism - i.e. art does not depict 'reality' as it seems to be seen by the eye.
Excuse the dissertation.
- O, art historian full-time, artist sometimes

 

[Olivianna]

I thought of one more thing -
As far as chalking up Impressionism to bad vision -

If an artist really saw so blurry, he* could just paint things representationally. Then those things would be blurry when he looked at them. If he blurred his paintings, they'd be double-blurred when he looked at them.
Can you imagine someone who is nearsighted struggling with a magnifying glass so as to represent everything on canvas in an accurate (blurry) way - as he saw it?
That just seems extremely absurd.

*The pronoun 'he' has been used here for the sake of economy; naturally, there are female artists for whom this discussion could apply.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

It has been speculated that Van Gogh may have suffered from glaucoma, thus accounting for the way he painted 'ring' sort of effects around various light sources.

Monet of course has already been mentioned.

 

[badasschick]

I know Matisse suffered from Arthritis later in his career,and moved to paper collages, but I will always love his work. Something about the way he shapes a woman, is so beautiful.

 

[Olivianna]

Hmmm....I still think that it is dangerous to reduce the explanation for artistic styles to medical conditions. Fact is, Impressionism was an inheritor of the ideas of Romantic artists (Turner, Delacroix), and their works acknowledged the Romantics' painterly style. Impressionists were also influenced heavily by photography, industrialism, the social life of the rising middle classes, and a host of other issues that impacted their decisions to react against the rigid and formal styles of the Academy. If glaucoma or failing eyesight were the impetuses for the paintings produced by van Gogh and Monet, why is it that previous artists in the western tradition, who doubtless suffered from similar conditions, had not produced similar works (i.e. with rapid, impasto brushwork)? Were all of the Impressionists, most of whom knew each other, just blind as bats? Actually, that artistic movement was extremely intellectualized and quite cerebral, and had less to do with the reality "out there" as it is seen by the eye, but rather more to do with how it is seen with the mind.

 

[ag2507]

The Equivocator

This is definately a yes and no, true and false question. Undoubtably any visual distortion is going to impact a visual artist. However, the underlying theme of most (there are some issues too) 20C artists is that they transcended the medium in a way that catches the imagination. Most of them had a variety of other character issues as well that may, or may not, have factored into their art; obsessive compulsive is a common factor in the lives of a number of creative genii.

The one artist I can be sure of is William Blake who had a rare ability known as an eidetic imagination: he saw what he imagined as if it was real - that definately is known to factor into his drawings, paintings and poetry.

So we come back to: yes, no, maybe!

a

 

[Ishmael]

Bump(ed) for the day shift

 

[Hamletmaschine]

I don't see this--attributing various artists' styles or what-have-you--to medical conditions as any different from psychological interpretations of art or literature.

Like Olivianna, I think it's often misguided and reductive. But it can be amusing sometimes.

 

[kotori]

I just want to add (technocrat that I am), that the invention of the camera in the early 19thC. greatly freed the painters who followed to explore the world in other ways than direct, Academic, representation.

Nothing to do with myopia. Call it, "poly-opia," because other ways to see became valid.

(Ohh, I invented a word.)

 

[Ishmael]

Kotori's point, along with my own 'revelation' as stated in the opening post brought me to this thought;

Spectacles, optics, lenses, etc had been around for a LONG while.

What if I were to remove my glasses to see a different perspective, then replaced them to capture that perspective on canvas. A purposeful use of my degrading vision. Or converesly, purposely used a lens to distort my vision while viewing the scene. Optical technology used to view a different perspective?

Oh well, just more thoughts.

Ishmael

 

[badasschick]

The other day I was at an art gallery, just looking around. There were some reproductions there of the old 'masters. and I happened to be looking at a repro of a Renoir. Well, I took my glasses off and looked around and damn, the world stared to look like the painting.

So, as a point of discussion. Is it possible that some of the styles of painting came about because that is exaclty what the artist saw? That the had an occular disorder that caused them to see the world exactly as they painted it?

No conclussion on my part, just a thought.

Ishmael

Dude, maybe you were just tripping.

 

[riff]

May I suggest a reading of Susan Sontag's Against Interpretation here?

 

[Hamletmaschine]

. . . and her book on photography would also be germane.

 

[Ishmael]

May I suggest a reading of Susan Sontag's Against Interpretation here?

Sure you can Riff, but I doubt that I'll be reading it today, or anytime else in the near future.

Want to synopsize it for us?

Ishmael

 

[Olivianna]

Spectacles, optics, lenses, etc had been around for a LONG while.

What if I were to remove my glasses to see a different perspective, then replaced them to capture that perspective on canvas. A purposeful use of my degrading vision. Or converesly, purposely used a lens to distort my vision while viewing the scene. Optical technology used to view a different perspective?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, of course. van Eyck, Parmagianino, Vermeer and others used lenses and/or camera obscura to bring in to focus, distort, and manipulate the world as it was seen. But, I still insist, painting - and the Impressionists' works specifically - is not *just* about capturing what is seen with the eye (whether with spectacles or without). To conclude that Renoir built up the compositions and styles of brushwork on his canvases based on recording accurately what his degraded vision allowed him to distort, is like saying that Picasso went through a blue period because, for some time, he lived in blue houses.

 

[Ishmael]

Spectacles, optics, lenses, etc had been around for a LONG while.

What if I were to remove my glasses to see a different perspective, then replaced them to capture that perspective on canvas. A purposeful use of my degrading vision. Or converesly, purposely used a lens to distort my vision while viewing the scene. Optical technology used to view a different perspective?

Yes, of course. van Eyck, Parmagianino, Vermeer and others used lenses and/or camera obscura to bring in to focus, distort, and manipulate the world as it was seen. But, I still insist, painting - and the Impressionists' works specifically - is not *just* about capturing what is seen with the eye (whether with spectacles or without). To conclude that Renoir built up the compositions and styles of brushwork on his canvases based on recording accurately what his degraded vision allowed him to distort, is like saying that Picasso went through a blue period because, for some time, he lived in blue houses. [/QUOTE]

Hey, chill Olivianna. *Hands her a glass of her favorite cool beverage*

It's just some thoughts that I've had. Not a position, or anything else that I care to defend. That's why I'm throwing this out to be discussed by those who are much more knowlegable on the subject than I.

Ishmael

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Sure you can Riff, but I doubt that I'll be reading it today, or anytime else in the near future.

Want to synopsize it for us?

Ishmael

I'll do the honors: briefly, Sontag argues that we need to replace the interpretation of art with what she calls an "erotics" of art. In her view, interpretation means explanation, translation, and intellectualizing art by focusing on what it means. To her, art is experience, and the erotic relationship to an artwork is one in which we try to dwell in that evoked experience.

Nothing particularly new in the essay, really, although it was popular when it came out and influence lots of graduate students who stuck in Literature programs doing all that interpretive stuff. "Erotics of art" has a certain cache, after all.

 

[Olivianna]

Ishmael,
Ahhh. This is one subject that I feel pretty entrenched in - I have to drill it into the brains of college students every week. Speaking of which, I need to go give those rascals an exam. Ciao.

 

[Ishmael]

I'll do the honors: briefly, Sontag argues that we need to replace the interpretation of art with what she calls an "erotics" of art. In her view, interpretation means explanation, translation, and intellectualizing art by focusing on what it means. To her, art is experience, and the erotic relationship to an artwork is one in which we try to dwell in that evoked experience.

Nothing particularly new in the essay, really, although it was popular when it came out and influence lots of graduate students who stuck in Literature programs doing all that interpretive stuff. "Erotics of art" has a certain cache, after all.

Ahhhhhhhh, sounds like a veiled rant against the 'critics'. I can empathize.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

Ishmael,
Ahhh. This is one subject that I feel pretty entrenched in - I have to drill it into the brains of college students every week. Speaking of which, I need to go give those rascals an exam. Ciao.

*smile* Glad to see you're feeling better.

Have fun.

Ishmael

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Yup. Another case of an intellectual critic bashing intellectual criticism.