site: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59403252#
title:
Origins of Art: A Psychological & Sociological Inquiry
Book by Yrjö J. Hirn; Macmillan and Co. Limited, 1900. 331 pgs.
i found a large number of concepts & quotes that offer promise in writing about art.the one i will mention here deals with art & pain. reason being: that is how i found it in the search engine & because of a comment my mentor made about some of my work being melancholy. he stated it with the perspective of melancholy = beauty + sadness. for me the seaweed image reminded me of a dirty fish tank in which the algae had won, obscuring our view. algae is not a neg for me. i see it as a reclamation by nature/life >>> like a weed emerging from a crack in the sidewalk. man's efforts of conquest over nature are always short lived. this new view paints a bittersweet interpretation that peaked my curiosity.
little researcher that i am i had to flesh this out a bit to see what turned up & came up with lots of links to sites that focus on art in relation to psychology, sociology, philosophy, & aesthetics. those aesthetics guys love danto. there was even some conference coming up in which all the papers to be submitted were to be spinoffs. apparently the man's a god. reading the posts (at sites like: http://artmind.typepad.com/artphil/calls_for_papers/index.html) curled my brain. did find the highly intellectual and articulate exchange interesting. turns out most of them are hot shot teachers on such subjects & apparently go here to spar or hone their "stuff" before publishing papers or public speaking. seemed like they did a lot of speculating (about what artists think or do), do academic research & little real world sampling/interviewing to answer questions (as is done in psychology & medicine).
art & pain:
this a huge area i have not given focus to before. physical pain in art like scarification, tattoos, elongated necks, ear or lip plug/plates are the first thing that comes to mind. the whole idea that to be beautiful requires pain/sacrifice is of common knowledge (although not unnecessarily embraced). even mass produced art like the 1960's kitsch art of kids or baby animals with big weepy eyes & tater clothes or harsh environments reflect our penchant for images that evoke a wince,empathy, connection with/from the viewer. yet, according to this book, this desired quality in art has always been there>>> starting wayback with the paleo stuff ( not gonna go into it here...).
citing greek art & mythology was of interest to me. drawing attention to how their sculptures were often a coupling of beautiful forms/face/drapery & an facial expression that often suggested some sort of experiential gravity being contemplated. i started thinking about this & there is a huge amount of work that falls into this realm. notable for me is church art. damn near any crucifix with a body on it & saints with oozing wounds come to mind. yet not all of those (for me) hit the mark as beautiful (visually). yet in thinking of a work like the pieta, with beautiful face, seductive drapery, and a graceful corpse in her lap this perspective of pain both physical & emotional rings true. today, in viewing a pollack, geiger, or mtv video, one finds these references. i could go on...
think in many ways it is easier to manipulate an emotional connection from a viewer by going with the neg ones. i contemplate happy ones & they seem to miss that "edge." thomas kincade is pretty damn happy. i am hard pressed to think of any purely "happy" images from art history studies that come to mind. i do not consider sexuality as happy in the same sense & thus ruled out a whole bunch. still lifes & portraits are more about status, egos & possessions. landscapes are usually contemplative, suggest reverence/spirituality of sort, or documentation thus evoking a potential range of emotions. infusing images with a neg backstory creates depth that holds the viewer's attention longer? the artist is also the viewer & actively seeks content than challenges and engages him in viewing & construction.
anyhoo, the book address aspects like:
- the art impulse
- feeling/tone of sensation
- enjoyment of pain
- social expression
- art the reliever
- the work of art
- objections & answers
- concrete origins of art
- art & information
- historic art/animal display/art & sexual selection
- origins of self decoration
- erotic art/art depicting work/art & war/art & magic
- ++++ more
all comes from a psychological perspective>>> which means this stuff is a speculative reconstruction on some level. it is safe to assume there is little documentation on the psychological workings in previous generations. language alone does not stand still, so even if something was shared & written down in english way-wayback when does not mean it holds the same content today. many of our words have change in meaning or context/connotation, or intensity. if this is the case in written communication, then it is a consideration to taken with visual communications as well. i do hold to the thought that we are pretty much still the same animal as our forefathers & therefore the same genetics, reptilian brain, and chemistry that dictates behavior then stands now. in light of this, i think these guys are "on the right page."
how this relates to my work:
thats it!!!
no more 'sharing," i'm a switch'n to rainbows & unicorns & peeps.
actually, this book did address how the artist skirts revealing too much of one's underbelly in an image. that there is this conscious editing between hooking the viewer, aesthetic elements, emotional content, and narrative. think the whole "veil" thing i inadvertently pursue ties in to much of this, or--i am way off base & the obscured vision of my images just reflect my lack of clarity? :)
my paper:
think there is stuff here i will get more than a few miles out of. some of the references cited looked promising as well. may be useful in upcoming critical theory classes.
stuff/quotes from the book:
may use some of the stuff dealing with views of hegel, goethe, taine, vischer, spencer, hemsterhuis+++
------
"the art-impulse in its broadest sense must be taken as an outcome of the natural tendency of every feeling state to manifest itself externally, the effect of such a manifestation being to heighten the pleasure and to relieve the pain. We found in this fact the primary source of art as an individual impulse. But art is
"Art production would never have reached so high a develop ment if it had served only as a sedative for human feelings. But neither does art, any more than the direct activities of expression, involve mere excitement; it too fulfils, and with even greater efficacy, a relieving and cathartic mission." (p71)
"every artist who has a true and keen eye for nature and life will necessarily light, upon qualities which, while affording the most appropriate centre of gravity for his representation, are, also in the intellectualistic sense, explanatory of the subjects represented. By making every feature of his model converge towards this selected quality, he may thus produce an imitation which, even if it deviates from the visible reality, may appear truer than this reality itself."
"The intellectualistic illusion that every artistic representation has something to teach us about the essential nature of the things represented, can only arise on condition of there being a certain agreement between the world-view of the artist and that of his public."(p128)
"It no longer lays the chief stress on the intellectualistic requirement that artistic representation should be true to nature. It demands before all that the work of art should give a faithful rendering of the feelings with which the represented fragment of nature has been comprehended by the artist. Sincerity, as involving poetical truthfulness, thus becomes the chief claim which is set up for a work of modern art." (p129)
"When it has been proved that the rules governing the artistic adjustment of reality, which have been stated and vindicated on the basis of intellectualistic theories, may be equally well deduced from an emotionalistic interpretation, the argument can easily be extended so as to cover the principles governing the selection of subjects and motives for artistic representation."
am i right?
old silvery-tongued Yrjö sure knows how to spew this stuff. his distillation of historical thoughts on this subject & discipline should prove handy in future papers or class discussions.
No comments:
Post a Comment