Accidental Hedonist

John Ruskin goes hand-in-hand with the work of J.M.W Turner, because as critics ravaged Turner’s new, non-traditional approach to art, it was Ruskin who defended him and other artists like him, with the release of the book Modern Painters.

The well-reasoned critique within Modern Painters helped set the stage, or at least, provided enough rationale to new and different approaches to art, that it is a variable that needs to be accounted for in the transition from Romanticism to Impressionism.  There is much in the book that should be devoured with glee, but I want to point out a specific quote: There is a moral as well as material truth – a truth of impression as well as of form – of thought as well as of matter.

In other words, there is truth in perception as there is in reality.  A mountain exists in the landscape whether I see it or not. It is true by its nature. But when I do finally see that mountain, my impression of it is equally true, regardless of how it measures up to its nature.

What Ruskin states in Modern Painters is that an artist is obliged to be truthful to the thought of the mountain as to the mountain itself.  And if the techniques of paintings used to convey the truth of the thoughts run counter to the techniques employed by the Italian and Dutch masters of the seventeenth century, than so be it.   For an artist, it is truth one is after, not a specific technique or approach to the truth.

So when J.M.W. Turner showed this piece…

…yes, it was different, new, and non-traditional in its approach.  But from Ruskin’s point of view, Turner was being truthful to the impression of what he saw,  and was effective enough in his technique to convey it. This is, in part, what makes Turner great.

There’s far more to Modern Painters than that simple idea. His take down of the painters who we deem “The Masters” is, in of itself, masterful. From an art history perspective, however, just know that this book exists and that it challenged the notion of what “art” was at the time of its release in 1843.

Moonlight, A Study at Millbank – J. M. W. Turner – 1797

Take a few moments to look at these paintings by Joseph Mallord William Turner (aka J.M.W. Turner aka William Turner). While the subjects are important, what I wish to point out is the techniques used, and how Turner’s approach to light evolved. When looking at these paintings, focus on the approach the artist took to convey his ideas, and how that translated into technique.

Mount Vesuvius in Eruption – J. M. W. Turner – 1817

The Decline of the Carthaginian Empire – J. M. W. Turner – 1817

The Devil’s Bridge at St. Gothard – J. M. W. Turner- 1841

Rain, Steam, and  Speed, The Great Western Railway – J. M. W. Turner – 1844

Looking into his catalog of work, the evolution is just as clear.  By the time he reached near the end of his light, Turner was experimenting, not just with light, but with how the light was conveyed on the canvas, and how the approach used could alter the scene or event being painted.  What makes Rain, Steam, and Speed, The Great Western Railway so intriguing to me, is not just the technique, but how it relates to the artist and his previous works.  Early on, he followed tradition. By the end, he was painting almost nondescript scenes, with areas left clouded or ambiguous, and only a few items on the canvas that could be recognizable. He was pushing and exceeded traditional boundaries that had been taught in the art academies.

It is the height of either arrogance, hubris, or ignorance that allows for me to ask this question. I may as well have asked “What is truth?” or “What is beauty?”. It is of even greater arrogance that I intend on answering this question. Although, in my defence, this activity is more to help me define the boundaries in which I hope to work in order to gain at least a passing appreciation of some of the weirder aspects of modern art.  I don’t need for my answer to be correct, only adaptable as new evidence comes in. However, as arrogant as the question may be, it should be asked by anyone looking to understand art.

Note that I don’t use a “shall” here. It’s not a requirement to ask this question in order to enjoy art. It is perfectly acceptable to go into a museum with no knowledge of the various philosophies of art and walk away being satisfied by the experience.

Let me use Édith Piaf as an example (Flash Needed) -

I’m a fan (obviously, as I wouldn’t use her as an example if I didn’t), but I speak French very poorly, to the point that I’ve frustrated several French folks in my attempts to use their beautiful language.  Would me learning French properly allow me to appreciate Mdme. Piaf’s work on a greater scale? Sure.

Is it necessary for me to do so?  No. Sometimes the aesthetics of any given work transcends language, either spoken or painted.

My point is this – I’m choosing to approach art this way. You don’t have to. Neither approach is incorrect.

All of this rationalization is so I can state the following -  Art is a form of communication*. This idea of communication is the most minimal definition of art I can be satisfied with.  Much like Mdme. Piaf’s declarations that she regrets nothing, artists and their works have something to say. This communication has to occur through a medium of some sort or another. Something that message is clear, other times not so much. Sometimes the idea being conveyed is complex, other times simple.

For these series of posts, I will focus on the medium of the painted canvas primarily, although others will be mentioned from time to time, as they did have their influences upon the canvas.  And I expect my definition of what art is will likely change during these exercises.

*Note: Yeah, sure – art is communication. Before you send me a comment or e-mail stating that the dadaists or the surrealists would have scoffed at the definition, note that this is simply my starting point. And by bringing in the Dadaist movement so early in my studies means that your far ahead of where I’m at. Allow me to catch up before critiquing this definition too much.

Full Fathom Five - Jackson Pollock

It is time to move off of New York City as a topic for this blog, at least for the time being.  We went, we saw, we drank. It was good. It was very good. But if I’m going to set aside discussions on what makes New York City interesting for me, I need to replace it with something else. The question was what?

The answer came after visiting the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and walking into the Modern and Contemporary Art exhibit. We left feeling as if something was being said, and yet we were unable to understand what was being conveyed. This lead to visible frustration on the part of my friends and myself, and in talking afterwards, it became clear that we simply didn’t have the skill set to even begin to comprehend what was going on. And much like anyone who wants to know, but is continually frustrated in that  goal, we responded with anger.

This is a bias, pure and simple. We hate modern art, because we cannot comprehend it. Because we cannot comprehend it, we dismiss it as childish, with the phrase “my child could do that!” being uttered so often that it has become a cliché.

It was over drinks that we recognized this bias. We admitted that the fault in mis-comprehension may not be with the artist, but with us. As such, it was up to us to learn the “language” enough to come to an educated opinion, rather than a reactionary one. Thus, the new topic for Accidental Hedonist – Modern Art.

This is a big topic, one which may last longer than nine months. A good dollop of art history needs to be covered in order to set up the modernist movement. This is going to require time.

But it sounds like something we need to do. Anyone else want to come along?