In today's seminar session I looked at analysing quotes and collecting references; understanding the context of specific quotes and how they can be interpreted and explored. The quote my group and I looked at was the following:
'Once upon a time there was pure art and applied art (I prefer to use these terms, rather than 'fine' and 'commercial', because 'commercial art' does not cover enough ground). At all events, forms were born in secret in ivory towers and fathered by divine inspiration, and Artists showed them only to initiates and only in the shape of paintings and pieces of sculpture: for these were the only channels of communication open to the old forms of art.'
Funari, Bruno. (1966). Design as Art. Rome: Editori Laterza
• What do you think is being communicated by the quote?
In this quote there seems to be slight contempt towards how, historically, fine art was out of reach to the everyman in society and images and ideas were displayed and 'born in secret' amongst those were were self-initiated or appointed; but otherwise wealthy. Works were unveiled in estates and mansions and had a 'gentleman's club' inner circle who were only allowed to view them.He describes this hierarchy as secluded 'in ivory towers' and with only a limiting range of what art could be / was considered at the time. Who considered only sculpture and paintings to be the only channels of communication? Did this simply reflect the taste of the rich and powerful? Divine Intervention conveys imagery of miracles, deities and religion. Why were artworks mostly religious figures? Is Munari critiquing the restricting themes of what was considered to be the subjects within fine art works - religious icons, rich and powerful aristocracy, prostitutes used as life models but ultimately disguised as heavenly figures, landscapes?
I am led to believe, by reading the rest of the chapter that this quote has context within (Design As Art, Chapter: Pure and Applied, pages 34 - 36) that Munari has issues with things that are just purely aesthetic without function and considered factors. He makes comments on Modernity and Industrialism, mass-producing objects that are no longer hand-crafted. He describes aesthetic perfection, carefully chosen materials, and balance of space and massive as 'old-fashioned claptrap'. He favours function over form, substance over style and judges objects on their ability to fulfil their intended purpose rather than look pretty. "Every age has had its ideal Venus (or Apollo), and all these Venuses or Apollos put together and compared out of the context of their periods are nothing less than a family of monsters."
• How does it fit with the overall theme?
Within the context of aesthetics, this quote is concerned with the society and politics surrounding classical art and the limiting means of . Artworks were created purely to be aesthetically stimulating, rather than politically or ethically driven, but who decided that these pieces of portraiture and sculpture were the epitome of perfection? The taste of the rich elite drove what was considered, shunning any opinion or commentary from the everyman; a farm-worker or labourer. Commercial art is for the masses, and is mass-produced, whereas the fine art of older times was simply housed in rich people's homes for their circle to admire. These elements of taste, because of where the work was displayed, has trickled down and still influences today on which art we define as pure art / fine art. We have to consider the value that is put on these things - the classifications and interpretations of art between people and where illustration may fit into that.
• What are the key terms within the quote that can be investigated?
Pure art, applied art, fine art, commercial art, initiates, paintings, sculpture, old forms.
• Define those key terms using research - linking to potential examples.
• Locate two images that you think could relate to that quote.
'Once upon a time there was pure art and applied art (I prefer to use these terms, rather than 'fine' and 'commercial', because 'commercial art' does not cover enough ground). At all events, forms were born in secret in ivory towers and fathered by divine inspiration, and Artists showed them only to initiates and only in the shape of paintings and pieces of sculpture: for these were the only channels of communication open to the old forms of art.'
Funari, Bruno. (1966). Design as Art. Rome: Editori Laterza
• What do you think is being communicated by the quote?
In this quote there seems to be slight contempt towards how, historically, fine art was out of reach to the everyman in society and images and ideas were displayed and 'born in secret' amongst those were were self-initiated or appointed; but otherwise wealthy. Works were unveiled in estates and mansions and had a 'gentleman's club' inner circle who were only allowed to view them.He describes this hierarchy as secluded 'in ivory towers' and with only a limiting range of what art could be / was considered at the time. Who considered only sculpture and paintings to be the only channels of communication? Did this simply reflect the taste of the rich and powerful? Divine Intervention conveys imagery of miracles, deities and religion. Why were artworks mostly religious figures? Is Munari critiquing the restricting themes of what was considered to be the subjects within fine art works - religious icons, rich and powerful aristocracy, prostitutes used as life models but ultimately disguised as heavenly figures, landscapes?
I am led to believe, by reading the rest of the chapter that this quote has context within (Design As Art, Chapter: Pure and Applied, pages 34 - 36) that Munari has issues with things that are just purely aesthetic without function and considered factors. He makes comments on Modernity and Industrialism, mass-producing objects that are no longer hand-crafted. He describes aesthetic perfection, carefully chosen materials, and balance of space and massive as 'old-fashioned claptrap'. He favours function over form, substance over style and judges objects on their ability to fulfil their intended purpose rather than look pretty. "Every age has had its ideal Venus (or Apollo), and all these Venuses or Apollos put together and compared out of the context of their periods are nothing less than a family of monsters."
• How does it fit with the overall theme?
Within the context of aesthetics, this quote is concerned with the society and politics surrounding classical art and the limiting means of . Artworks were created purely to be aesthetically stimulating, rather than politically or ethically driven, but who decided that these pieces of portraiture and sculpture were the epitome of perfection? The taste of the rich elite drove what was considered, shunning any opinion or commentary from the everyman; a farm-worker or labourer. Commercial art is for the masses, and is mass-produced, whereas the fine art of older times was simply housed in rich people's homes for their circle to admire. These elements of taste, because of where the work was displayed, has trickled down and still influences today on which art we define as pure art / fine art. We have to consider the value that is put on these things - the classifications and interpretations of art between people and where illustration may fit into that.
• What are the key terms within the quote that can be investigated?
Pure art, applied art, fine art, commercial art, initiates, paintings, sculpture, old forms.
• Define those key terms using research - linking to potential examples.
• Pure Art: We can apply Pure Art to paintings, carving, music, speaking languages. One of the elements of Pure Art is 'Purity' - Purity means unique, clear, no other elements in the concerned set of elements. It seems easy to understand, we always want a single and attractive element that no other can hinder our incentive to pursue. (Source: http://www.artlau.com/pure_arts.htm)
• Applied Art: The applied arts are the application of design and decoration to everyday objects to make them aesthetically pleasing. The term is applied in distinction to the fine arts which aims to produce objects which are beautiful and / or provide intellectual stimulation. In practice, the two often overlap. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_arts)
• Fine Art: A visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic and intellectual purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolour, graphics, and architecture." (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_art)
• Commercial Art: Often called advertising art, is used to sell goods and services. It is different from fine art, which exists for its own sake. Commercial artists design advertisements, logos, billboards, brochures, book covers, product packaging and other similar artwork. Their work is often used to sell, promote, explain, narrate and inform. They are often employed by advertising agencies, newspapers, magazines, graphic design firms, television studios and similar businesses. (Source: http://study.com/commercial_art.html)
• Initiates: Admit (someone) into a secret or obscure society or group, typically with a ritual. (Source: Google Define)
• Paintings: The action or skill of using paint, either in a picture or as decoration. (Source: Google Define)
• Sculpture: The branch of visual art that operates in three dimensions, representative or abstract forms, specifically by carving stone or wood or by casting metal or plaster. (Source: Google Define)
• Channels of Communication: Refer to a medium through which a message is transmitted to its intended audience, such as print media or broadcast (electronic) media. There are many more communication channels today than there were 50 years ago where print, TV and radio were the main vehicles. (Source: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/communication-channel.html)
• Old Forms: Configurations or structure of art from a long time ago.
• Locate two images that you think could relate to that quote.
• How do they exemplify the argument within the quote?
I have selected two images in relation to Munari's quote; a portrait of Field Marshall George Townshend, 1st Marquess Townshend - known as The Viscount Townshend - a British politician and soldier and, in contrast, a well-known advertising campaign from Apple Inc. to sell the iPod.
They are both images of people that were created to live within different contexts, in different time-periods and to specific audiences. The first was created purely as a portrait to be housed in Townshend's home, clearly a man of wealth and status, whose audience would be himself, his family and his elite circle. The population of the time would have had no access to view this painting. However, the artwork by Apple was created to advertise, sell and promote a piece of technology which reached a wider mass audience and available to view by everybody - with a much simpler aesthetic to the first painting and giving the impression of simplicity, fun, flair and adaptability that the first image does not contain. It also represents a rime in which there are far more than just two main channels of communication and Apple took advantage of many of these in order to sell its product.
The sparks the question of who decides which is fine art and which is not? Is commercial art thought-provoking or does it just have to be aesthetically pleasing to sell? How can we challenge the influential and wealthy of today to consider thought-provoking illustration as a form of high art. Can we move away from commercialisation? Question of ownership and what elements align with the aims and messages of the rich and powerful.
I have selected two images in relation to Munari's quote; a portrait of Field Marshall George Townshend, 1st Marquess Townshend - known as The Viscount Townshend - a British politician and soldier and, in contrast, a well-known advertising campaign from Apple Inc. to sell the iPod.
They are both images of people that were created to live within different contexts, in different time-periods and to specific audiences. The first was created purely as a portrait to be housed in Townshend's home, clearly a man of wealth and status, whose audience would be himself, his family and his elite circle. The population of the time would have had no access to view this painting. However, the artwork by Apple was created to advertise, sell and promote a piece of technology which reached a wider mass audience and available to view by everybody - with a much simpler aesthetic to the first painting and giving the impression of simplicity, fun, flair and adaptability that the first image does not contain. It also represents a rime in which there are far more than just two main channels of communication and Apple took advantage of many of these in order to sell its product.
The sparks the question of who decides which is fine art and which is not? Is commercial art thought-provoking or does it just have to be aesthetically pleasing to sell? How can we challenge the influential and wealthy of today to consider thought-provoking illustration as a form of high art. Can we move away from commercialisation? Question of ownership and what elements align with the aims and messages of the rich and powerful.
No comments:
Post a Comment