On this blog, we will explore several major aesthetic theories from realism to postmodernism and engage in a dialogue about the very nature of art. Key contemporary artists will be explored in depth as each theory is unpacked and examined.
Each response should be between 150-250 words in length. These are due on the date listed at the top of each entry,
Monday, September 5, 2011
Realism
Find an ART 21 artist whose work fits your definition of "Realism" and say why their work fits this theory. What would Plato and Aristotle have to say about this artist's work?
I consider Florian Maier-Aichen as an artist creating work under the definition of realism because of the similarity of his photographs to reality. Even though Maier-Aichen clearly manipulates his images, it is in an attempt to idealize and enhance the vivacity of the landscapes. His work reminds me of old landscape paintings because of the picturesque quality of his images. The viewer knows that the work has been manipulated because the beauty of the images seems to take us beyond natural beauty. However, there is no confusion about what he is depicting. He alters the images to enhance their beauty rather than to alter the shapes and forms of what he originally saw. The landscapes do not become obscured by his alterations. I think that Aristotle would appreciate Maier-Aichen’s work because of the idealization of the landscape, making the viewer appreciate the wonder of nature. Plato might enjoy Maier-Aichen’s work again because of the idealization and its associations with his ideal realm. Moreover, the work might help teach the young about beauty. However, he might dislike that it is thrice removed from the ideal landscape. Furthermore, trying to capture a landscape in an idealistic way might make the viewer believe they are actually looking at a landscape from the ideal realm.
The artist I selected from ART 21 is Collier Schorr since her pieces fall nearest to my understanding of the term Realism. In the majority of her photographs, Schorr presents scenes of boys (sometimes dressed as soldiers, sometimes as wrestlers, and sometimes without any blatantly distinctive markings or clothing) most often placed in mundane settings. Her work has a really “lifelike” quality to it and I mean that as in they appear to have a firm sense of naturalness to them. Realism, in my opinion, is much about depicting the “everyday” aspect of the subjects. It’s about stripping away the poses and forced beauty and placing emphasis on the “actuality” of what is being presented in the work. Schorr embraces this and, although some of her subjects are posed, in a lot of instances she photographs real people in real situations. I’m having a little trouble imagining what Plato or Aristotle would say about Collier Schorr’s work. However, in an attempt to answer the question, I think Plato might say that Schorr is astutely pointing out the natural flaws and imperfections of humans and by showing the connectedness of these forms she is alluding to the ideal form that they have all sprung from. Shorr herself talks about this quality of “tribes” that interests her, this tension of being alike but being at odds. This is why she is drawn to the imagery of soldiers and wrestlers. I think this fits nicely into Aristotle’s understanding of qualities or ideals existing in the collection of the forms that exhibit such qualities.
I chose the artist Walton Ford, because his prints are realistic representations of animals. As a realist painter of birds, quadrupeds, reptiles, and other species, Ford could be described as an artist in the field of natural history. He renders his scenes with drama, capturing moments when the natural order changes, such as the last member of a species struggling just before extinction. I believe that Plato would have enjoyed his art because Ford’s images deal with the notion of animal idealization and its associations with his ideal realm. It is clear that the animals Ford paints are usually not shown acting in a realistic manner and they are rarely shown situated in a realistic space, or even drawn in realistic proportions, but any viewer can look at his prints and recognize that he is portraying actual animals. As for Aristotle, I believe that he would consider that Ford produces objects that have a kind of life of their own. In the sense that craft imitates nature, its easy to see that Ford’s paintings imitate nature physically, but not necessarily realistically with regard to his placement of the animals and his depiction of some of their behaviors.
At the time of writing, it seems that ART 21 is temporarily down or just not working for me, but I recall seeing an artist on there some time back, a one Tim Hawkinson, who does these computer-aided portraits. Whats interesting about his pieces is that they attempt to move realistically to express a variety of emotions, which he does by having little motors move around sections of the piece in various angles. Truth be told, the end result is a little... nauseating and grotesque to me, but atleast he's carved out a name for himself in this niche of kinetic-art.
As for what Plato or Aristotle would actually think of Hawkinson's piece, its hard to say, since his art is probably as far as you can get from the word "traditional". However if I were to bring Plato or Aristotle from the future, teach them about the modern world which wouldn't frighten them and teach them English, I think they'd be fairly mesmerized by the way Hawkinson's art simply moves. What seems arbitrary to us would have seemed god-like to them. Sarcasm aside, I think they'd be able to point out that Hawkinson's pieces seem to point to the flaws in human beings (what the visible wires and machinery are no doubt referencing themselves). Hawkinson's work is far from the "ideal" which Aristotle and Plato talked about, but in a way I think he sort of trancends it by trying something new and... well, making something human react inhumanly with all those machines....
I think Cindy Sherman's work could be seen as realism. I think her work could be seen as kitschy however still a form of realism. Her work is realist in that it is photographs of human beings or manipulations of dolls. All of her work is a mimicry of life however her work is definitely manipulated reality. Her work also reminds me a lot of Koons and of Serrano because of the statements they are making on society and culture of their time. I found it very interesting in the chapter when it says that we say a photograph of someone is that person but we say a painting of someone is a painting of that person. I think that in Cindy Sherman's work it is interesting to see that though it is a photograph of someone we would have to acknowledge that it is indeed a photograph of someone because often times it is very manipulated. Sometimes even to the point that it may be seen as more of a painting. In this way it challenges realism however also reminds me again of Koons' work such as the Michael Jackson porcelain. This is because it is a person but it manipulated just enough so that it is not quite real.
My definition for realism is pretty straight forward: realism is art which replicates its subject matter, something that exists in the real world, as accurately as possible. From the Art21 artists, I chose Collier Schorr, who takes photos of adolescents. Firstly, she chooses to use photography as her medium, which closely replicates to color and shading of the figures. It is, however, limited. Her replications are two-dimensional, whereas the subjects are three dimensional young adults. She also minimizes obvious editing for most of her work, so the image appears honest. Plato, I imagine, would be dismissive of her work, as he was with art as a whole. Art only replicates what is seen which only replicates the ideal; art is thrice removed from true reality, no matter what. He might even view her work as detrimental to society, possibly by inspiring impulses in the viewer to do immoral things. Aristotle would probably be a bit more opened to her work. Aristotle thought art celebrates reality and is an investigation to find aesthetic perfection. Schorr’s work clearly represents its subject matter, while engaging the viewer emotionally and intellectually in a way that is similar to the effect the viewer would feel if they were viewing the real, living adolescents. Aristotle would also think that anything morally wrong shown in her work gives the viewer a sense of release, and that one does not crave to perform the immoral act afterwards. The two philosophers would definitely disagree on the value of Schorr’s art.
I was drawn to Art 21 artist Robert Adams’ photographs of the American western landscape as an example of Realism in art. To me this artist’s work suits the title Realism for the obvious fact that his medium is photography, the most literal depiction for Realism. While looking at the images though, there is a very real sense of isolation and loneliness that the photos evoke. Adams does not employ any sort of fancy manipulation of the image to convey this feeling, though his use of black and white film, I feel, does aids in the desolate landscape. Adams I feel is successful in portraying the contradiction of human presence in a empty landscape. I do not believe that Plato would value Adams work. Adams work evokes too much emotion in the viewer, but would Plato look to these landscapes as contemplating beauty, since it causes the viewer to perhaps question the morality of human progress? Hard to do without trying to evoke an emotional response, if you ask me. Aristotle was a bit more forgiving when it came to the arts, but here again I question whether he would approve of Adams’ work. Adams’ images do not always fall into the realm of classical beautiful landscapes, in the exclusive sense, often using unbeautiful settings in picturesque views. Though Aristotle would be pleased that Adams’ art is meant to inform us rather than just please our eye.
I believe that the works of Vija Celmins embody the term realism. To me, the definition of realism in art is depicting a common subject as it appears in nature, without altering its appearance or setting. Certainly, Celmins’ work fits this description. She works with oils, charcoal, and other media to render scenes of nature such as spider webs and waves, as well as depicting commonplace household items such as fans and lamps. Her works capture every detail of her subject with intense accuracy, and her choice of such ordinary subjects, to me, intensifies the realism of her works. The minute detail she captures, and the attention to every nuance give her works a vivid, almost photorealistic quality. If Plato were to view Celmins’ work, I believe he would condemn it as mimicry of nature because of how deceptively real her works can be. This realism might not only anger, but frighten Plato, and I’m sure he would condemn Celmins’ as dangerous, and not allow such an artist into his perfect state. Aristotle, on the other hand, might be much more receptive to this work, and would certainly be impressed by the attention to detail. Imitation of the natural world is an innate human quality, according to Aristotle, so Celmins’ is simply following her human urges when she creates. I believe he would find even her most ordinary and commonplace subjects beautiful and pleasing to view and contemplate.
Vija Celmins is one of the artists who is well-known for her hyper realistic style of drawing. Celmins garner public attention on her work through her ability to capture the surface quality of complex objects (such as waves or spider web) with absolute precision. She spent months and sometime years on a single piece of work to try and accurately translate her photograph into a drawing/painting. I consider Celmins to be a realist artist because the objects that she draws do not mean to symbolize anything else. There is no trick in her work; they are what they meant to be. For Celmins, her works serve as a reminder of different moments in her life. They are supposed to be sentimental and nostalgic, which is a feeling that might stir up inside the viewer when they are looking at her work. Celmins did manipulate some parts of her drawing but a large portion of it is a direct copy of her photograph. Plato would have hate Celmins work as he has a pessimistic view on art in general. He would perceive it as an imitation of an imitation and would probably advice people to look at the object itself rather than looking at Celmins work. According to his philosophy it would be pointless for us to see something that is “thrice removed from the reality it depicts, and thus neither to be trusted nor valued.” Aristotle would have an opposite position to Plato on Celmins work since it contains the aesthetic beauty as well as causing the viewer to be moved and learn something from the work (i.e. see Celmins’s spider web drawing and think of the time he/she spent with her family in his/her home in the countryside).
Realism is hard for me to define; mainly because I go all philosophical and into the whole but what really is real debate in my head. Anyways, in terms of art I will define realism as something that portrays reality. For my artist I chose Kara Walker. I did this for multiple reasons. 1. being her use of silhouette - because most people see the world in black and white (this is a reality). 2. Though her figures are archetypes and occasionally idealized there is always something off in the over all picture - much like how in the world nothing is perfect when given more than a first glance. As far as what Plato or Aristotle would think... Well Plato hates art, essentially. So no Plato wouldn't like Kara Walker because her representations are not close to his Ideal Forms. Though he may like what he would consider her use of art to make political or social points about her society. I think Aristotle would like Walker's work. Her work is very much about her point of view and "experiencing human intelligence". It is meant to make you think, which Aristotle would have liked.
After searching through artists I found Bo Bartlett. His oil paintings are fascinating and real. The subjects exist in themselves: a bar of soap, a bible, a woman named Belle, a man in an aquarium, girls in etiquette class. He does not exemplify the beauty of these things, he includes blemishes and details that are accurate not expressive. Plato and Aristotle would be pleased by the fact that he depicts real life, but they would not enjoy the imperfections he refuses to overlook. Before researching I assumed my definition of realism would be mostly photography or those modern painters who do incredible photo realistic approaches to their work. I found myself expanding what I thought fell into the category of realism after reading. I think Bartlett's work exemplifies realism because he is not trying to exaggerate or embellish or invent anything. He paints what exists and draws attention to the ordinary. He made me stop and stare at a bar of soap, and that accomplishment is my definition of realism.
When I hear that a work of art is described as realistic some of the first things that come to my mind are, landscapes that mimic a specific and existing place, portraits, sculpture that depicts humans for example with correct proportion, and paintings that depict "realistic" scenes, giving depth and real characteristics to the subject and elements shown within it. While looking at the Art 21 artists I thought that Florian Maier-Aichen had realistic work, as he has mainly photography and I believe that it depicts, in some way, reality. I mentioned in some way, as I believe that the artist choses what he/she wants to show to the viewer and from his point of view and perspective. I believe that Plato would not appreciate Florian's work as much because he would claim that it is a depiction of the world we live in, which in turn is a depiction of the ideal and invisible world that exists around us. moreover, he would say that it is creating feelings to the viewer that can create negative reactions and a false reality. on the other hand, Aristotle would have a completely different approach as he would say that since it is a portrayal of nature, he would consider it beautiful, as he connects beauty to form, and then as the artist wants to show and educate the viewer through his art about an issue or concern, he would appreciate it as he also connects form to meaning.
William Wegman’s work fits my definition of realism. To me, realism is art that looks just like the object it represents. Wegman’s dogs look just like the actual dogs they depict so his work is a great example of realism. Plato would have Wegman’s work banished from society since it is “thrice removed from the reality it depicts” (Barrett 19). Plato believes that art engages our emotions and causes humans to be unable to reason clearly. Wegman’s work is often playful and silly and it definitely appeals to human emotion so Plato would definitely want it far away from his society. Aristotle would like Wegman’s work for the same reason that Plato would not like it. Aristotle would appreciate the fact that Wegman’s work appeals to human emotions. According to Aristotle, art “engages our attention and emotions almost as would the real thing” (Barrett 30). Aristotle and Plato have opposite views about art and they would have contrasting opinions on Wegman’s work.
When I viewed the artists on Art21, I was captivated by the work of Kiki Smith, a feminist artist who does amazingly complex sculptures and wonderful 2D work as well. Her work is an example of realism, in my opinion, due to the fact that she shows the raw, real ugly. I do not think that Aristotle or Plato would appreciate her work for that very reason; She does not try to idealize beauty, but rather focuses on much more unsettling, even grotesque, imagery.
William Wegman is a contemporary artist whose work includes Polaroids, pigment prints, C-Prints, black and white prints, and even videos of his pet dogs, along with other things. These works can be classified as realistic and fit into the theory of realism. Barrett claims that, “A picture is Realistic if a typical viewer tends to be deceived by it, thinking the picture is what it is a picture of” (49). Obviously, a photograph will be realistic as it is a snapshot of life. Barrett writes that, “Photographs and other camera-based images are commonly accepted as the most Realistic of the arts” (38). Plato and Aristotle would certainly have something to say about William Wegman’s pieces. Plato did not believe that art had a place in a perfect society, because society itself lies in an imperfect realm. Thus, Plato asserted a work of art is “thrice removed from the reality it depicts, and thus neither to be trusted or valued” (19). A photo of Man Ray, Wegman’s first dog, is not the dog itself but a mere representation of it. And this “false sense of reality obscures what is really real” according to Baudrillard (19). Aristotle, on the other hand, did believe that art had a place in society. He believed that an artist should not only try to imitate nature, but also make it more beautiful; “not simply copy… but celebrate it by finding the universal or archetypical, representing an amalgamation of the best nature provides” (30). Beauty, for Aristotle however, was “based on knowledge first, then on the appearance and function of that which is said to be beautiful” (31). Important in the appearance were “attributes such as size, order, proportion, harmony, and symmetry” (31). I believe Aristotle may like Wegman’s work, as he uses his dogs as props to convey human expressions and feelings, universal truths of life. We can gain knowledge of our own lives by looking at these photographs of dogs.
I consider Florian Maier-Aichen as an artist creating work under the definition of realism because of the similarity of his photographs to reality. Even though Maier-Aichen clearly manipulates his images, it is in an attempt to idealize and enhance the vivacity of the landscapes. His work reminds me of old landscape paintings because of the picturesque quality of his images. The viewer knows that the work has been manipulated because the beauty of the images seems to take us beyond natural beauty. However, there is no confusion about what he is depicting. He alters the images to enhance their beauty rather than to alter the shapes and forms of what he originally saw. The landscapes do not become obscured by his alterations. I think that Aristotle would appreciate Maier-Aichen’s work because of the idealization of the landscape, making the viewer appreciate the wonder of nature. Plato might enjoy Maier-Aichen’s work again because of the idealization and its associations with his ideal realm. Moreover, the work might help teach the young about beauty. However, he might dislike that it is thrice removed from the ideal landscape. Furthermore, trying to capture a landscape in an idealistic way might make the viewer believe they are actually looking at a landscape from the ideal realm.
ReplyDeleteThe artist I selected from ART 21 is Collier Schorr since her pieces fall nearest to my understanding of the term Realism. In the majority of her photographs, Schorr presents scenes of boys (sometimes dressed as soldiers, sometimes as wrestlers, and sometimes without any blatantly distinctive markings or clothing) most often placed in mundane settings. Her work has a really “lifelike” quality to it and I mean that as in they appear to have a firm sense of naturalness to them. Realism, in my opinion, is much about depicting the “everyday” aspect of the subjects. It’s about stripping away the poses and forced beauty and placing emphasis on the “actuality” of what is being presented in the work. Schorr embraces this and, although some of her subjects are posed, in a lot of instances she photographs real people in real situations. I’m having a little trouble imagining what Plato or Aristotle would say about Collier Schorr’s work. However, in an attempt to answer the question, I think Plato might say that Schorr is astutely pointing out the natural flaws and imperfections of humans and by showing the connectedness of these forms she is alluding to the ideal form that they have all sprung from. Shorr herself talks about this quality of “tribes” that interests her, this tension of being alike but being at odds. This is why she is drawn to the imagery of soldiers and wrestlers. I think this fits nicely into Aristotle’s understanding of qualities or ideals existing in the collection of the forms that exhibit such qualities.
ReplyDeleteI chose the artist Walton Ford, because his prints are realistic representations of animals. As a realist painter of birds, quadrupeds, reptiles, and other species, Ford could be described as an artist in the field of natural history. He renders his scenes with drama, capturing moments when the natural order changes, such as the last member of a species struggling just before extinction. I believe that Plato would have enjoyed his art because Ford’s images deal with the notion of animal idealization and its associations with his ideal realm. It is clear that the animals Ford paints are usually not shown acting in a realistic manner and they are rarely shown situated in a realistic space, or even drawn in realistic proportions, but any viewer can look at his prints and recognize that he is portraying actual animals. As for Aristotle, I believe that he would consider that Ford produces objects that have a kind of life of their own. In the sense that craft imitates nature, its easy to see that Ford’s paintings imitate nature physically, but not necessarily realistically with regard to his placement of the animals and his depiction of some of their behaviors.
ReplyDeleteAt the time of writing, it seems that ART 21 is temporarily down or just not working for me, but I recall seeing an artist on there some time back, a one Tim Hawkinson, who does these computer-aided portraits. Whats interesting about his pieces is that they attempt to move realistically to express a variety of emotions, which he does by having little motors move around sections of the piece in various angles. Truth be told, the end result is a little... nauseating and grotesque to me, but atleast he's carved out a name for himself in this niche of kinetic-art.
ReplyDeleteAs for what Plato or Aristotle would actually think of Hawkinson's piece, its hard to say, since his art is probably as far as you can get from the word "traditional". However if I were to bring Plato or Aristotle from the future, teach them about the modern world which wouldn't frighten them and teach them English, I think they'd be fairly mesmerized by the way Hawkinson's art simply moves. What seems arbitrary to us would have seemed god-like to them. Sarcasm aside, I think they'd be able to point out that Hawkinson's pieces seem to point to the flaws in human beings (what the visible wires and machinery are no doubt referencing themselves). Hawkinson's work is far from the "ideal" which Aristotle and Plato talked about, but in a way I think he sort of trancends it by trying something new and... well, making something human react inhumanly with all those machines....
I think Cindy Sherman's work could be seen as realism. I think her work could be seen as kitschy however still a form of realism. Her work is realist in that it is photographs of human beings or manipulations of dolls. All of her work is a mimicry of life however her work is definitely manipulated reality. Her work also reminds me a lot of Koons and of Serrano because of the statements they are making on society and culture of their time. I found it very interesting in the chapter when it says that we say a photograph of someone is that person but we say a painting of someone is a painting of that person. I think that in Cindy Sherman's work it is interesting to see that though it is a photograph of someone we would have to acknowledge that it is indeed a photograph of someone because often times it is very manipulated. Sometimes even to the point that it may be seen as more of a painting. In this way it challenges realism however also reminds me again of Koons' work such as the Michael Jackson porcelain. This is because it is a person but it manipulated just enough so that it is not quite real.
ReplyDeleteMy definition for realism is pretty straight forward: realism is art which replicates its subject matter, something that exists in the real world, as accurately as possible. From the Art21 artists, I chose Collier Schorr, who takes photos of adolescents. Firstly, she chooses to use photography as her medium, which closely replicates to color and shading of the figures. It is, however, limited. Her replications are two-dimensional, whereas the subjects are three dimensional young adults. She also minimizes obvious editing for most of her work, so the image appears honest. Plato, I imagine, would be dismissive of her work, as he was with art as a whole. Art only replicates what is seen which only replicates the ideal; art is thrice removed from true reality, no matter what. He might even view her work as detrimental to society, possibly by inspiring impulses in the viewer to do immoral things. Aristotle would probably be a bit more opened to her work. Aristotle thought art celebrates reality and is an investigation to find aesthetic perfection. Schorr’s work clearly represents its subject matter, while engaging the viewer emotionally and intellectually in a way that is similar to the effect the viewer would feel if they were viewing the real, living adolescents. Aristotle would also think that anything morally wrong shown in her work gives the viewer a sense of release, and that one does not crave to perform the immoral act afterwards. The two philosophers would definitely disagree on the value of Schorr’s art.
ReplyDeleteI was drawn to Art 21 artist Robert Adams’ photographs of the American western landscape as an example of Realism in art. To me this artist’s work suits the title Realism for the obvious fact that his medium is photography, the most literal depiction for Realism. While looking at the images though, there is a very real sense of isolation and loneliness that the photos evoke. Adams does not employ any sort of fancy manipulation of the image to convey this feeling, though his use of black and white film, I feel, does aids in the desolate landscape. Adams I feel is successful in portraying the contradiction of human presence in a empty landscape. I do not believe that Plato would value Adams work. Adams work evokes too much emotion in the viewer, but would Plato look to these landscapes as contemplating beauty, since it causes the viewer to perhaps question the morality of human progress? Hard to do without trying to evoke an emotional response, if you ask me. Aristotle was a bit more forgiving when it came to the arts, but here again I question whether he would approve of Adams’ work. Adams’ images do not always fall into the realm of classical beautiful landscapes, in the exclusive sense, often using unbeautiful settings in picturesque views. Though Aristotle would be pleased that Adams’ art is meant to inform us rather than just please our eye.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the works of Vija Celmins embody the term realism. To me, the definition of realism in art is depicting a common subject as it appears in nature, without altering its appearance or setting. Certainly, Celmins’ work fits this description. She works with oils, charcoal, and other media to render scenes of nature such as spider webs and waves, as well as depicting commonplace household items such as fans and lamps. Her works capture every detail of her subject with intense accuracy, and her choice of such ordinary subjects, to me, intensifies the realism of her works. The minute detail she captures, and the attention to every nuance give her works a vivid, almost photorealistic quality. If Plato were to view Celmins’ work, I believe he would condemn it as mimicry of nature because of how deceptively real her works can be. This realism might not only anger, but frighten Plato, and I’m sure he would condemn Celmins’ as dangerous, and not allow such an artist into his perfect state. Aristotle, on the other hand, might be much more receptive to this work, and would certainly be impressed by the attention to detail. Imitation of the natural world is an innate human quality, according to Aristotle, so Celmins’ is simply following her human urges when she creates. I believe he would find even her most ordinary and commonplace subjects beautiful and pleasing to view and contemplate.
ReplyDeleteVija Celmins is one of the artists who is well-known for her hyper realistic style of drawing. Celmins garner public attention on her work through her ability to capture the surface quality of complex objects (such as waves or spider web) with absolute precision. She spent months and sometime years on a single piece of work to try and accurately translate her photograph into a drawing/painting. I consider Celmins to be a realist artist because the objects that she draws do not mean to symbolize anything else. There is no trick in her work; they are what they meant to be. For Celmins, her works serve as a reminder of different moments in her life. They are supposed to be sentimental and nostalgic, which is a feeling that might stir up inside the viewer when they are looking at her work. Celmins did manipulate some parts of her drawing but a large portion of it is a direct copy of her photograph. Plato would have hate Celmins work as he has a pessimistic view on art in general. He would perceive it as an imitation of an imitation and would probably advice people to look at the object itself rather than looking at Celmins work. According to his philosophy it would be pointless for us to see something that is “thrice removed from the reality it depicts, and thus neither to be trusted nor valued.” Aristotle would have an opposite position to Plato on Celmins work since it contains the aesthetic beauty as well as causing the viewer to be moved and learn something from the work (i.e. see Celmins’s spider web drawing and think of the time he/she spent with her family in his/her home in the countryside).
ReplyDeleteRealism is hard for me to define; mainly because I go all philosophical and into the whole but what really is real debate in my head. Anyways, in terms of art I will define realism as something that portrays reality. For my artist I chose Kara Walker. I did this for multiple reasons. 1. being her use of silhouette - because most people see the world in black and white (this is a reality). 2. Though her figures are archetypes and occasionally idealized there is always something off in the over all picture - much like how in the world nothing is perfect when given more than a first glance.
ReplyDeleteAs far as what Plato or Aristotle would think... Well Plato hates art, essentially. So no Plato wouldn't like Kara Walker because her representations are not close to his Ideal Forms. Though he may like what he would consider her use of art to make political or social points about her society.
I think Aristotle would like Walker's work. Her work is very much about her point of view and "experiencing human intelligence". It is meant to make you think, which Aristotle would have liked.
After searching through artists I found Bo Bartlett. His oil paintings are fascinating and real. The subjects exist in themselves: a bar of soap, a bible, a woman named Belle, a man in an aquarium, girls in etiquette class. He does not exemplify the beauty of these things, he includes blemishes and details that are accurate not expressive. Plato and Aristotle would be pleased by the fact that he depicts real life, but they would not enjoy the imperfections he refuses to overlook. Before researching I assumed my definition of realism would be mostly photography or those modern painters who do incredible photo realistic approaches to their work. I found myself expanding what I thought fell into the category of realism after reading. I think Bartlett's work exemplifies realism because he is not trying to exaggerate or embellish or invent anything. He paints what exists and draws attention to the ordinary. He made me stop and stare at a bar of soap, and that accomplishment is my definition of realism.
ReplyDeleteWhen I hear that a work of art is described as realistic some of the first things that come to my mind are, landscapes that mimic a specific and existing place, portraits, sculpture that depicts humans for example with correct proportion, and paintings that depict "realistic" scenes, giving depth and real characteristics to the subject and elements shown within it.
ReplyDeleteWhile looking at the Art 21 artists I thought that Florian Maier-Aichen had realistic work, as he has mainly photography and I believe that it depicts, in some way, reality. I mentioned in some way, as I believe that the artist choses what he/she wants to show to the viewer and from his point of view and perspective.
I believe that Plato would not appreciate Florian's work as much because he would claim that it is a depiction of the world we live in, which in turn is a depiction of the ideal and invisible world that exists around us. moreover, he would say that it is creating feelings to the viewer that can create negative reactions and a false reality. on the other hand, Aristotle would have a completely different approach as he would say that since it is a portrayal of nature, he would consider it beautiful, as he connects beauty to form, and then as the artist wants to show and educate the viewer through his art about an issue or concern, he would appreciate it as he also connects form to meaning.
William Wegman’s work fits my definition of realism. To me, realism is art that looks just like the object it represents. Wegman’s dogs look just like the actual dogs they depict so his work is a great example of realism. Plato would have Wegman’s work banished from society since it is “thrice removed from the reality it depicts” (Barrett 19). Plato believes that art engages our emotions and causes humans to be unable to reason clearly. Wegman’s work is often playful and silly and it definitely appeals to human emotion so Plato would definitely want it far away from his society. Aristotle would like Wegman’s work for the same reason that Plato would not like it. Aristotle would appreciate the fact that Wegman’s work appeals to human emotions. According to Aristotle, art “engages our attention and emotions almost as would the real thing” (Barrett 30). Aristotle and Plato have opposite views about art and they would have contrasting opinions on Wegman’s work.
ReplyDeleteWhen I viewed the artists on Art21, I was captivated by the work of Kiki Smith, a feminist artist who does amazingly complex sculptures and wonderful 2D work as well. Her work is an example of realism, in my opinion, due to the fact that she shows the raw, real ugly. I do not think that Aristotle or Plato would appreciate her work for that very reason; She does not try to idealize beauty, but rather focuses on much more unsettling, even grotesque, imagery.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Wegman is a contemporary artist whose work includes Polaroids, pigment prints, C-Prints, black and white prints, and even videos of his pet dogs, along with other things. These works can be classified as realistic and fit into the theory of realism. Barrett claims that, “A picture is Realistic if a typical viewer tends to be deceived by it, thinking the picture is what it is a picture of” (49). Obviously, a photograph will be realistic as it is a snapshot of life. Barrett writes that, “Photographs and other camera-based images are commonly accepted as the most Realistic of the arts” (38). Plato and Aristotle would certainly have something to say about William Wegman’s pieces. Plato did not believe that art had a place in a perfect society, because society itself lies in an imperfect realm. Thus, Plato asserted a work of art is “thrice removed from the reality it depicts, and thus neither to be trusted or valued” (19). A photo of Man Ray, Wegman’s first dog, is not the dog itself but a mere representation of it. And this “false sense of reality obscures what is really real” according to Baudrillard (19). Aristotle, on the other hand, did believe that art had a place in society. He believed that an artist should not only try to imitate nature, but also make it more beautiful; “not simply copy… but celebrate it by finding the universal or archetypical, representing an amalgamation of the best nature provides” (30). Beauty, for Aristotle however, was “based on knowledge first, then on the appearance and function of that which is said to be beautiful” (31). Important in the appearance were “attributes such as size, order, proportion, harmony, and symmetry” (31). I believe Aristotle may like Wegman’s work, as he uses his dogs as props to convey human expressions and feelings, universal truths of life. We can gain knowledge of our own lives by looking at these photographs of dogs.
ReplyDelete