Mile 7 ...

It looks like our discussions have really heated up! This is exciting and I'm learning a great deal from all of you. Before I press on, you should know that it's my intention to end my review of Williams' book with Mile 10 (Thursday or Friday), which means I'll be galloping ahead at a pretty good pace and will let you fill in the holes as you see them. After that, I'd like to open the floodgates for your ideas about the influences on your own work as an artist. Therefore, I'll happily relinquish the "floor" and post your ideas if you'd like to write something. The length should be about the same as one of my posts. I will act as moderator. If you're interested, email your write-up and attached images (if you have some) to: kcartwright@kacartwright.com. I'll post submissions in the order that I receive them, but I may have to interrupt the sequence from time to time in order to feature some of my work. This blog is dedicated to the critical analysis of art and your opinions are very important!

A couple of other comments before returning to the trail. Camper, Margaret Ryall said yesterday: I wonder if changes through art history are as neatly packaged as Williams describes. History gets written after the fact and is based on whatever evidence remains. I agree, and want to again clarify that Williams' book is only one man's interpretation of the evolution of art theory through the ages. He's trying to make a single point about the importance of theory in art. The reason I've chosen to focus on this book is because it speaks to and helps me understand the influences on my work. Our collective discussion brings breadth to the ideas expressed in this book.

Don also asked about the omission of Cezanne from my text. He makes the excellent point that Cezanne had one of the largest influences on modern art as we know it. I consider him the transitional element between the Impressionists and the ensuing development towards abstraction. His quote to the painter Emile Bernard could be construed as the essence of modern thought, "Drawing and color are not distinct... The secret of drawing and modeling lies in contrasts and relations of tones." Many of the artists of the early 20th century considered him the father of modern art. I agree Don, and was surprised that Williams didn't present Cezanne that way. Well stated!

Back on the trail: Mile 7. I'll start with Ruskin and the Aesthetes (sounds like a Motown group!) which requires a little backtracking. In discussing the art theories of the 19th Century, Williams devotes a lot of text to France, Germany, and America. But, England was a happening place, too! (This is for you, Mark!) John Ruskin (1819 -1900) was an English writer who wrote a tome entitled Modern Painters, published in 1843-44 and another 4 volumes in 1860. He had a LOT to say! Essentially, this publication was a revision of the history of art and a theoretical foundation for modern art. Ruskin is considered the greatest writer on art in the English-speaking world - ever. He saw art as the product of economic, political, and spiritual conditions. The essential argument in his book is that traditional landscape painting (academic type) is bankrupt because it's really about artifice rather than nature. It's formulaic. He felt that art is better when it's not overly concerned with technical perfection. Hurray for Ruskin! I like that :)

Ruskin's books provided a theoretical foundation for a new group of English artists called the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, established in 1848. They were fed up with academic rules and revived the use of illustrated religious themes or stories from Medieval history and poetry. A blast from the past!

And, there's more: Ruskin urged for the development of artistic talent in the underclass and that the prices of work by living artists should be regulated so that people of modest income can afford them. Now, that's radical!! The artist, J.M.W. Turner was influenced by Ruskin's theories.

But, what have we learned about people who publish books?? They get criticized. In this case, the artist J.A.M. Whistler represented the opposition to Ruskin. He felt that the task of an artist is to pursue beauty rather than truth. His supporters were known as the Aesthetes, and Oscar Wilde was among them. Between them, Whistler and Wilde advocated for "Art for art's sake." Wilde wrote: We spend our days searching for the meaning of life. Well, the meaning of life is - Art.

As we boldly march into the Early 20th Century, we see a dramatic acceleration of artistic innovation that led to greater variety than ever before. There's a proliferation of "isms" and I seriously doubt that I'll write about each one, so you'll have to write about the ones that most interest you. At the turn of this century, there was a widespread belief that science, technology, and industry were about to transform everyday life completely. Theories became more important.

Futurism burst onto the scene in 1909 through a manifesto published in Paris by the Italian poet, F.T. Marinetti. He called for a complete and violent rejection of the past and a whole new system of artistic values. As Williams puts it: Italian artists attempted to represent movement itself with abstract dynamic patterns, strong linear rhythms, and color contrasts. There was a glorification of war and violence, scorn for women, and eager anticipation of the Great War. Artists were activists.

And, this is where I'll sit back by the campfire to listen in awe to all the wonderful things that YOU have to say! Next time: Cubism, Dada, Surrealism, American Modernism, Expressionism...

Please pass the wine ...

Mile 6 ...

Looks like we all moved to the beach for tonight's campfire discussion. Mmmm... the sand feels great between my sore toes! Before we get started, I have a message for everyone from fellow camper, Egmont. He's been traveling and has had trouble finding wifi access, but wants everyone around the campfire to know that he's anxious to get back into the discussion with us and hopes to arrive back home by Thursday. Egmont ... have a safe trip back and we look forward to all that you have to say!!

Before hitting the trail, I should remark on yesterday's discussion: WOW. If you haven't read all the comments, please go back and look at them again. There's a lot of substance there. We might want to continue discussing many of the points you raised, but I'll focus on only one at this point. Mark, you almost kept me up all night thinking about your idea that "each movement seems to be a rebellion against the others." Don addressed this and I'd like to push it a little further down the trail by using the overarching idea presented in Williams book. From what I've been reading, it appears that historical changes in art theory emerged from what was first a change in philosophy (often coupled with politics) which led to a change in the literary arts and then the visual arts. So the train of theory looks like this: the engine is the philosopher, the passenger car is the poet, and the caboose is the artist. This would mean that the artist reacts to and reflects the present condition of the world rather than leading it to the next condition. Although forms of rebellion took place in art theory, they may have been more circumstantial. For instance, Courbet's initiative to build his own exhibition to Realism happened only after he had already painted the work and tried to exhibit it in the traditional venue. On the other hand, as Don points out, Courbet was politically a radical figure and his motivation in art was also political. Quite honestly, I don't know the true answer, Mark, and am excited that you raised the question - more to think about.

The second point that Mark makes is "the constant ... that good art should connect." I guess I could think about this forever, and I can see where you'd come to that conclusion. What do the rest of you think?

Well, I'll lace up my hiking boots and head back to the trail. We still have a few more miles to go, and hope you'll forgive my tendency to take shortcuts through William's excellent book on the history of art theory. There's just too much in that book for me to explore here, and this journey could be one of a thousand miles if I attempt to do so. Back to the 19th Century ...

I marched through a number of "isms" that all fall under the general category of Modernism: Realism, Impressionism, Neo-Impressionism, and Symbolism. I'd like to pick the trail at Symbolism again and march into the early 20th Century.

Henri Matisse was prominent among the Symbolists but also among the Expressionists who first appeared in Germany in the beginning of the 20th Century. Matisse and his associates created paintings that were considered so outrageous that they were dubbed the "fauves" at a 1905 exhibition. The translation of fauves is "wild beasts." Actually, Matisse and Wassily Kadinsky (1866-1944) are considered second generation symbolists at a transitional stage in art theory. In order to understand these two artists and their contribution to art, I'll give you a little background on each.

Henri Matisse received academic training, but departed from it to experiment with color. He liked being identified with the Expressionists by emphasizing the importance of expression in his paintings, but he also stressed the calm and rational - the scientific. He once wrote: What I dream of is an art of balance, of purity and serenity, devoid of troubling or depressing subject matter .. calming influence on the mind.... I am unable to distinguish between the feeling I have about life and my way of translating it. A big influence on Matisse was a Parisian philosopher named Henri Bergron, who published the book Creative Evolution in 1907. Bergron brought us "vitalism," which places emphasis on the dynamic coupled with the sense of infinite possibility. His work helped Matisse realize the possibility of objective, scientific expression. I know this seems a little mind-bending, but if you look at Matisse's work, you can figure it out:












Wassily Kandinsky is an interesting character as well. He studied law before painting, and moved to Moscow from Munich where he became involved with progressive artists and writers. Then, he moved to France from 1906-07 where he was influenced by Matisse and the Fauves. After that, he returned to Germany and pushed his own work toward greater color intensity and freedom. In 1911, Kandinsky painted the first completely non-representational painting. So, he was the pioneer of this style. Here's an example:

In 1911, Kandinsky published the first comprehensive statement of Symbolist principles in his essay On the Spiritual in Art. Here are a few major points from that essay:

• the task of the artist is to provide a new language for the spirit


• Realist painting is associate with materialism and freer abstract paintings with the new spirituality


• complete freedom of expression must be the work of art in order to achieve subtler, more articulate expressivity


• establishes a close link between painting and music


• provides a careful analysis of colors and how they interact

It would be difficult to overstate the amount of influence these two artists had on the art world during their time and since. By the time I entered college, it was ALL about abstract expressionism and, especially Kandinsky's contribution to art theory. I know that many of you have a lot to say about this, so I'll let you say the rest. You can do it better :)

Next time: Ruskin and the Aesthetes ... the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood and a little more.

Mile 5 ...

We had to add more wood to the fire and pull up a few more chairs. Now, things are really getting hot! Don ate the rest of the marshmallows, so we'll make popcorn tonight :-) Hey, Carolyn, what's in the cooler??

With bandaids on my blistered feet and Bengay on my legs, I'll continue this existential journey to find the roots of my art thought. As we leave the 18th Century, France's Academie Royale was dissolved by the revolutionary government in 1793, and then revived as the Academie des Beaux-Arts in 1795. Politics, Society and art theory had dramatically changed in France and the Western world. Modernism was born as we enter the 19th Century. And, Modernism gave rise to a whole host of "isms." I'll keep this as short as I can, so feel free to fill in all the holes with your comments!

Evidently, there's not much agreement among art scholars about what caused Modernism at the beginning of the 19th Century, so I'll just report what Williams wrote. Modernism in art is a response to the transformation of society that resulted from the upheavel of the (French) revolution and the advent of mass politics, and the shift in economy toward technology and exploitation of inexpensive labor. He thinks that the best way to understand what Modernism is, would be to think of it as a critical enterprise: overt social criticism and critical thought. Well, once you open the door to overt criticism it seems like you get a whole lot of other isms!

Realism: This term was first applied to Gustave Courbet's painting "Burial at Ornans" below.

Courbet was harshly criticized for this painting because it depicted ordinary life and homely people. It was a "genre" painting. Remember the importance of "ideal beauty"?? But, the guy had guts and determination. This painting was rejected from the pavilion of French art at the Universal Exhibition in Paris (1855) so he built his own "Pavilion of Realism" nearby!

How did Courbet explain himself? He wrote: By reaching the conclusion that the ideal and all that it entails should be denied, I can completely bring about the emancipation of the individual and finally achieve democracy. Realism is essentially democratic art. Now ... that's really radical! Realism was the renunciation of Romanticism and academic art. Things really had changed ... and, that change is a big part of my root system as an artist. I've identified another foundational stone.

Around this time, novelist Emile Zola rose to prominence and had a theory about the role of art that became a major influence. He wrote: If temperaments did not exist, all paintings would simply be photographs. (Egmont ... I think you can make a good case for photography as fine art!) Zola goes on to say that to be an artist you must abandon yourself bravely to your nature and try not to lie to yourself. Amen to that!! Zola's ideas gave legs to Impressionism.

On the one hand, Impressionism seems to derive from Realism by deflecting away from overt political and social messages, and also to extend the exploration of what is "real." On the other hand, Impressionism went in an entirely different direction - one that placed strong emphasis on individual perception and temperament. The confusion comes from the fact that Impressionism was created by a handful of strongly individualized artists with completely different personalities. To complicate things, few if any of these artists were interested in verbal theorizing, so there's no clear definition for this "ism."

Anyway, Impressionism coalesced as a movement in 1874 when a group of artists who were rejected from the Salon banded together to exhibit on their own. It seems to me that Courbet served as a good example of what to do in reaction to the "snooty" Salon! But, these artists didn't create their name. Rather, a critic who saw their exhibition dubbed them "Impressionists." This group exhibited together eight times, the last in 1886.

The importance of this "ism" can't be understated in my personal development as an artist. According to Williams, Impressionism treated nature as both an object of study and a point of departure; the line between seeing and feeling, between the outer and the inner world, has been obscured. I can definitely identify with this theory, and this might be the "tap root" of how I think as an artist.

I won't spend time elaborating on the Impressionist artists because most people know of them.

Of course, with any theoretical experiment in art there's a "next step." That would be Neo-Impressionism. Georges Seurat, the pointillist, is the poster child for this "ism." His interest in scientific color theory provided an extention to Impressionism that was new. Philosophically, he thought that it was the obligation of art to pursue a "harmony" which is independent of nature. To me, that means that an artist should create harmony within the picture plane itself through the abstract means of applying the elements of composition and color theory. Tragically, Seurat died in his early thirties, in 1891, so he never had much of a chance to further develop his ideas. BTW - Seurat didn't use the term "pointillism." He called it "divisionism."

By 1886, Symbolism was the latest thing. It began in Paris as a literary movement that extended to the other arts. This was in reaction to Realism and also Zola's Naturalism. Symbolism wasn't an actual single style. It was a bunch of principles that embraced a variety of styles - kind of a theoretical umbrella. For the most part, Symbolism was a movement away from representation and social reality toward an exploration of the subjective experience - the irrational. Nietzsche was a big influence. He wrote: It is only as an aesthetic phenomenon that existence and the world are eternally justified.... Art is the highest task and properly metaphysical activity of this life .... Our creative activity has value only because our need for illusion is the truth of our nature. This is deep stuff!

The Symbolists including artists like: Gustave Moreau, Odilon Rerdon, Paul Gaugin (who was both a Symbolist and Impressionist), and so on. Critic Albert Aurier thought that Gaugin was the leading figure in Symbolism because his art is concerned with the expression of the Idea ... which is diametrically opposed to Impression.

Just to break this up: here's a picture of me (fresh off the boat) at the Gaugin museum in Tahiti. I was appalled to find that his canvases were hung in outdoor pavilions - absolutely no climate control or screening from insects. Oh, dear!

Other Symbolists include Vincent Van Gogh and Edvard Munch, among others.

This journey through the 19th century is about to take a radical turn, so I think I'll rest by the fire for awhile and pick up the trail tomorrow. Is the popcorn ready yet??

Mile 4 ....

Egmont: I'm posting this image again for you, my friend. Hope your road travels will lead you safely back home in the near future. In the meantime, enjoy the company of your "pals" by

the campfire :) So, sit back and enjoy a glass of wine and warmth of the fire ...


Yesterday, Sheila mentioned that we've become like the artists who used to gather for discussions. She reminded me of the 1940's in New York City when "The Artists' Club" used to meet at the Waldorf Cafeteria in Greenwich Village to hash out ideas. These artists included Pollock, Rothko, Hofman, deKooning, etc. I think we ARE the cyber-version of that!

At this point of my existential journey my feet are starting to get tired and there are, as Robert Frost once wrote, "miles to go before I sleep." Undaunted, I shall continue into the 18th Century's period of Enlightenment.

In his book, Williams reveals how the combined effects of the Industrial Revolution, development of the Natural Sciences, and the American and French Revolutions influenced art. In art, there was still an attitude toward classical antiquities but a more scientific approach developed to explain the psychological meanings. Yes, folks, what we have here is the emergence of the "art critic." (curses!) But, not just any old critic, these folks wrote art critiques that rose to an elevated, high literary level. You might say that they had a BIG influence on art.

The most influential critic of the time was a French philosopher and editor named Denis Diderot. He called for more powerful emotional effects in art as well as more serious subject matter, a severe style, and the highest sense of moral purpose. This was radical! It was a demand for a full-scale reform of painting. A lot of artists listened and responded.

But, Diderot had his detractors. For instance, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, a German playwright, wrote an essay in 1766 arguing that the visual arts should concern themselves primarily with beauty and give less attention to narrative. Those that followed Lessing's advice began painting "sublime" landscapes. These were wild and crazy paintings of rugged scenery that typified the "unbeautiful" and became popular. This was really an appeal to break the rules and elude control. As Don pointed out on the last blog, there was reaction against the academies that began in the Renaissance. This is a good example.

But, why limit ourselves to the influence of only two philosophies? Enter Alexander Baumgarten, a German academic who invented the field of "aesthetics." That word derives from the Greek "aesthesis" which means "feeling" in the sense of physical perception. Baumgarten believed that the experience of beauty in nature and art should be seen as a matter of sense perception rather than abstract thought. And, it was his ideas that inspired the famous philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804), who later became known as "The Founder of Modern Thought" and was a huge influence on the development of modern art theory.

Kant wrote about what it means to say something is beautiful. (Margaret, you've been waiting for this part!) He thought that beauty isn't a statement about the object being observed, but rather it's about our pleasurable interaction with the object. So, beauty is really about our own condition. Kant wrote: "The beautiful is that which, without any concept, is cognized as the object of a necessary satistfaction." As Williams' states in his book, Kant believed that because pure aesthetic judgements are conceptless, our experience of art cannot depend upon our awareness of the artist having striven rationally and mechanically to achieve certain effects; art of the highest kind must not be regarded as a product of understanding and science, but of genius." OH! So that's where the "genius" thing came from...

Additionally, Kant made a distinction between "fine art" and "mechanical art." The former is the product of original genius and not subject to rules, and the second is rule-bound and imitative. Now, here's something for an artist to live up to! Wow.

Anyway, Kant's ideas gave rise to a thirty-year period called "Radical Idealism" which established an interdependence of art and thought - art became a kind of philosophy. Hey! This isn't new - this is Renaissance theory! But, the new twist is that art began to engage in politics .. to be an expression of political freedom.

So, what theories from the Enlightenment have influenced my thoughts and work? All of them:

• embuing my art with psychological meaning
• creating a visual voice for the "unbeautiful" as well as the beautiful
• assigning beauty to my interaction with what I perceive and in the act of making art
• fighting the notion of "genius" which was imposed on me early in my training as a necessary condition for art (Kathy's Rebellion)
• And, making political statements in some of my work

BTW - here's an anecdote to give you a little insight into my first year in college as a fine arts student: My 2-D instructor (who shall remain nameless) handed out the course syllabus on the first day and made this announcement to the class: "If you are a woman in this class I have no time for you! You will drop out of college because of one of the 3-M's: Matrimony, Maternity, or Menopause. So, why should I waste my time on you? Additionally, if you are a woman in this class you'll never receive an "A." So ... this was my introduction to studying art in college. And, I received an A-minus for a grade.

Next mile, I'll travel through most of the Nineteenth Century. Someone pass me the Hershey bars, I'd like to make s'mores!

Mile Three ...

I liked Sheila's idea of a cyber-fireside chat, so here we are! And, if you're not in the picture, please join us :)

My existential journey continues as we all gaze into the fire and contemplate the fuzz in our navels. For those of you who are just now joining us, I'm looking into the roots of Western art theory in order to better understand the influences on my own thoughts and work so that I can examine them, evaluate them, and advance to improve my work. So far, we've covered the Ancients, Medieval art, and part of the Renaissance. The "map" for my journey is the book Art Theory: An Historical Introduction by Robert Williams. Someone, please put another log on the fire and pass the wine ...

When I last wrote, Alberti had laid the foundation for modern art theory way back in 1435 A.D. Now, there's a man with a vision! For today's post, I'll finish the Renaissance. Obviously, I'm leaving out a great deal of Williams' facts and ideas from his book to cherry-pick what is relevant to influences on my art.

This brings us to Leonardo daVinci (1452 - 1519 A.D.). He extended Alberti's theories to elevate the status of painting to a "science." By that, he meant a philosophical activity that combines inductive and deductive reasoning. This was a big deal, because, prior to this time, the status of painters was beneath that of poets and philosophers. As the late, great Rodney Dangerfield would say, those artists "don't get not respect!" Leonardo claimed that painting could arrive at "truth" - which is something that philosphers had claimed that only philosophy could do. Don't we think that way today? Don't we believe that painting reveals a "truth" and that artists should be held in high regard? We have Leonardo to thank for that.

Then, along came Humanism - the cultivation of universal values inspired by the study of classical antiquity. Among the Humanists was an Italian named Giorgio Vasari, who published the book The Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects in 1550. In it, Vasari demonstrated that the progress of art up to that point includes increasing naturalism, increasing beauty, more persuasive storytelling, and greater expression of abstract ideas. He concluded that DESIGN is what unites the visual arts and makes them unique to all other disciplines. His contribution to us through this work is to formalize and contextualize the history of art which elevates its status even more. So, it looks like we artists today are standing on a pretty good foundation. But, these are only the first few stones.

Another Italian named Giavanni Paolo Lomazzo published a book entitled Treatise on Painting in 1584 that further defined and formalized art. He divided painting into seven elements:

• proportion
• motion
• color
• light
• perspective
• composition
• form

Sound familiar?? Yup, even today we consider these elements important when we construct a work of art.

All this came from Humanism. According to Williams: Humanism gave art the tools with which to extend its reach into and over culture as a whole, to establish itself as the necessary and uniquely privileged activity it has remained. The genie was out of the bottle.

So, what is the natural outcome of all this? The artistic academy! This formalized way of teaching art sprung up in the early 16th Century in Europe, and exerted a powerful iinfluence over artistic life for centuries. These academies were the most important means by which artists were able to win widespread recognition for themselves as professionals and intellectuals rather than craftsmen. We got respect! Academies were also a means for the standardization and internationalization of artistic culture, spreading a system of theoretical values that remained remarkably uniform until into the 19th Century. Oh ... this is definitely a part of my roots!

I won't go into the long history of how academies got started and spread throughout Europe, but it's interesting if you ever want to read about it. However, there was a down side to the academy: student work became formulaic. So, there were many attempts throughout this period to reform artistic education in order to eliminate the problem. These efforts weren't entirely successful.

I should mention the grandest of all academies: the Academie Royale de Peinture et de Sculpture in Paris (est. 1648). This academy marked the transition from Italian-dominated art theory to French, although the French art theory was derived from the Italians. The Acadamie actually created a hierarchy of the various genres of painting. I'll list them from the most "important" (top of list) to the least (bottom):

• histoire - paintings dealing with historical scenes
• portraiture - the human form
• everyday life - a.k.a. "genre"
• landscapes
• still life

Here's a question for you: does this hierarchy still stand today? Is there a hierarchy?

So, I'll end the Renaissance here. I've definitely identified some influences on my own work from that time. Next ... the Enlightenment!

Along the Road Home

Heartfelt thanks to all of you who choose to walk with me as I follow the path of the history of thought in art to find my way "home." Your substantive comments to yesterday's blog really made me think! Mark Sheeky http://marksheeky.blogspot.com/ asked: Is knowledge of the art of the past useful to the artist at all? This is a great question. My answer is "yes" and "no." Certainly, the lack of that knowledge doesn't matter in terms of the ability of an artist to create original and important work. In fact, it could be an asset not to learn about art history. But, I'm well past the point of not knowing since I was schooled in art. So, for me, one who's been exposed to and influenced by tradition, the answer is "yes."

But, there are a few more points I'd like to make in answer to Mark's great question. First, our work is evaluated by art critics, gallery directors, museum curators, and savvy collectors who judge us in comparison to our contemporaries as well as to historical artists and art "isms." These people make decisions with a knowledge of art history, so I think it would be an asset to every artist to know what those who pass judgement on our work know.

Second, this is my journey and so I have a personal reason for taking it. Here's an anecdote to illustrate my reason why. Two decades ago I had the unfortunate experience of divorcing after a twenty year marriage. During the separation period, I was eating a bowl of ice cream (no longer on my diet!) and suddenly - in a flash - thought "why am I eating this flavor?? I don't even like it!" That's when I realized that I was eating that flavor because he liked it and insisted that we eat it at home. The rest of the realization was that I had acquired all kinds of habits and preferences that were his and that I had almost completely suppressed myself. So, I began the painful process of examining and questioning everything I did in order to "find Kathy." It took years, but once I found myself, I sprang to life and rapidly improved and advanced my life and career!

My development as an artist is similar. I was trained by others - told how to work and think. Yes, I was allowed a certain latitude for creativity, but the influence loomed large. So, now I'm looking at this "bowl of ice cream" and saying to myself: WHY do I think this way as an artist? Where did these art theories, which were instilled in me, come from? How did they originate? How have they influenced my work? If I can figure this out, then I have a better chance of advancing.

Another great question comes from my good friend Don Michael, Jr. (http://www.donmichaeljr.com/blog/) who asks why I'm examining Western Art when there's a whole world of art out there. The reason is because I am the product of Western art theory, so that's what I must examine in order to understand the roots of my thoughts.

So, back to Williams book. I'll make this brief since I've already written a lot.

Yesterday, I quickly moved through the Ancients, and stopped right before Medieval art, a time when artists were still preoccupied with ancient themes, but made them more elaborate. Because the leading thinkers of that period were members of the Church, the value of art was defined in religious terms. So, they were sensitive to the psychological function of images, which led to a preoccupation with signs and symbols. This preoccupation has waxed and waned over the years, and seems to have a foothold in today's art scene from what I've witnessed.

I'll make a quantum leap to the Renaissance. An Italian named Leone Battistsa Alberti published a book in 1435 called On Painting. I mention this because it's regarded as the first work of early modern art theory and nearly every idea that it contains was taken up, elaborated, and codified over centuries later. And, it's a major influence on my work. Here are the notable aspects of his book:

• an explanation of the optical and geometric principles governing "perspective"
• description of the science and mathematics of painting to "add intellectual dignity to the craft"
• insistance that the artist represent emotion, character, and ideal beauty
• division of the processs of painting into: circumscription (drawing of outlines), composition (arrangement of forms) and reception of light (modeling and coloring)
• emphasis on the narrative aspect of a painting (content)

Alberti's idea is that the painter's ability to orchestrate an irresistable emotional response from the viewer is an indication of his psychological insights and philosophical depth. And, this was considered a very important goal. I recognize the influence of Alberti's ideas upon my own training and way of thinking. And, I now know that his work developed in response to the necessity to organize and formalize very elaborate Medieval art - to get it under systematic control. Imposed order - yeah, I get that!

Finding a Way Home

For several years, I've been trying to find answers about how and why we artists arrived at this way of thinking and painting. Sure, I've taken courses in art history and read a bunch of books, but that really didn't answer my existential question. I learned about who created what art and when. You might wonder why this even matters to me. It's because I learned how to paint through formal instruction: lectures (one person's interpretation), rules, critiques (subject to one person's opinion), and studying paintings in museums and galleries. So, you might say that I just learned to accept what I'd been taught and didn't pull back the curtain to see what's behind it. If I don't pull back the curtain, I can't understand enough to find my way in art. After all, it wasn't until Dorothy saw Oz' "wizard" unveiled that she could find the way home. I'm trying to find my way home, too.

A few years ago, when I was teaching a college class, I briefly interrupted my own lecture and asked my students: "Do you believe what I just said simply because I'm the prof and I said it?" They sat in silence for awhile before someone offered the opinion that I was the expert and so it made sense that they should believe what I say. I told the class that, while I appreciated their respect, they should always challenge me. Ask me "How do you know that?" And, challenge themselves - do some additional research and see if I am correct. Maybe I'm not. After all, I don't know everything so the probability that I'll make a mistake is pretty high.

So, I'm challenging what I've learned and searching for answers. I found the book Art Theory: An Historical Introduction by Robert Williams and it's leading me down a path that might help me arrive at my destination. Perhaps you've already read it. The author is concerned with the history of "thought" about art and I'm beginning to understand how we artists got HERE. How I got here. Most of you are probably way ahead of me and know this stuff already. But, for those of you who aren't, I hope you'll travel with me through these next posts as I strive to find the answer. I realize that this book is the opinion of only one man, but it makes a great deal of sense to me. So, let's take a look at the deep roots of art "thought":

One thing that struck me is the enormous influence of ancient Greek and Roman art theory throughout millenia. Talk about having an impact! These ancients valued the artist's ability to create images in 2-D that seemed like the real thing in 3-D. They also valued paintings that moved beyond the suggestion of physical forms to express emotions and passions. And, they valued story-telling in art. All of these attributes of art are valued even today in one way or another. I'll guess that this is because it's human nature to find pleasure this way.

Today, we're used to superstar artists who are rich and famous. That occurred in ancient times, too, but only rarely. For instance, the artist Zeuxis got so rich from his paintings that he had his name embroidered in gold thread around the hems of his togas. The "rest" of the ancient artists were considered manual craftsmen and didn't make much money.

It's also interesting to me that artists back then weren't considered eccentric, like many are today. Instead they were deemed competitive, arrogant, and obsessive. Hmmmmm....

The over-arching thought was that art imitates nature. But, the ancients didn't just try to precisely replicate what they saw in their paintings. Instead, they believed in creating "ideal" forms. According to Plato, the "ideal" is also beautiful, and beauty was the goal. But, Pythagoras - who lived a century before Plato - believed that beauty is found in mathematics, and that math gives us the perfect proportions and symmetry of beauty. Actually, his thought wasn't original because a sculptor named Polykleitos, who lived in the mid-fifth century BCE, produced the Canon, which is a perfectly proportional statue of a man based upon mathematics.

There's more which I'll discuss later. So, what parts of ancient thoughts about art influence me today?

• creating 2-D illusions that have both emotional and story-telling content
• beauty in mathematics applied to art (proportion and symmetry)
• beauty? yes and no to that one

I'll string these threads through the next posts until we get to "today!"

P.S. The title of the painting I posted is The Egg Came First. This w/c painting was in response to a painter friend who thought the chicken came first. My argument: a fertilized egg is the product of sexual reproduction where chromosomes from the male and female must combine to form a new chicken. So, at some point a unique combination of chromosomes within an egg gave us the first modern chicken.

Painting Demo

This weekend, I decided to take a break from all the oil paintings I've been working on to do a new painting and try out the proportions I've been writing about in previous blogs. Here's the subject matter (left) - eggshells. What else???

I began by creating a Root 2 Rectangle. First, I drew a 15" square, then measured the diagonal which was 21.25". I took the square root of the diagonal and added that number to the length of one side of the square. The resulting rectangle is 19.6" x 15." (below)

Next, I decided to create a simple armature for the Root 2 rectangle. (below)

I decided to use the long axis as the vertical on my painting, so I upended the armature and also decided which part of the armature I wanted to utilize for my design (in orange). I also identified the important nodes with red circles. (below)

Then, I drew eggshells on tracing paper laid overtop the armature paying special attention to placement on the nodes. (below)

Next, I created a value drawing using charcoal paying attention to the directionality I selected in the armature as well as the nodes. (below)

At this point, I was ready to transfer the drawing to my watercolor paper (Arches 300 lb. cold press) using graphite paper. (below)

Before painting, I had to determine the palette. I settled on Faience Blue, Viridian, Cadmium Yellow Light, Cadmium Orange, and Permanent Red. You may well ask if there is a special reason I used these hues. Actually ... not really. I'm running out of watercolor paint and I still had plenty of these left! But, I did want the primaries and two secondaries, and I didn't want to exceed five hues. Often, I'll limit my palette to three hues. The fewer hues used, the greater chance of creating harmony. (below)

As I began to apply paint, I paid special attention to the value drawing I made earlier. This is critical! First, I applied masking fluid to areas that I wanted to keep white. Then, I applied a light blue wash to areas that will recede (below left). After that, I just started painting in all the eggs. I've posted several steps below showing my progress.

The completed painting (below).

Next, I have to check my work. So I loaded a digital image of my painting onto the computer and changed it to grayscale. When I compare the grayscale image (below left) to the original value study (below right) they match. I don't need to work on the values again.

Finally ... what did I learn from this? Well, it's got me thinking more about design. Although I didn't attempt a complex armature for this painting, I did manage to adhere to my intended design. Being able to paint intentionally is a huge step toward painting masterfully. OK - so I didn't shake up the art world with this painting, but who knows what the future will bring :-)

A List

As you know by now, I love reading art books. And, I've found that many of you have quite a collection as well. Therefore, I'm listing below the art-related books I've read over the past six months and hope that you'll mention the books you find helpful as well!

Ways of Seeing by John Berger, 1972, Penguin Books

Art Theory: An Historical Introduction, 2nd ed. by Robert Williams, 2009, Blackwell Publ. Ltd.

The Shape of Content by Ben Shahn, 1957, Harvard University Press

Interaction of Color by Josef Albers, 2006, Yale University

Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye by Rudolf Arnheim, 1974, University of California Press, Ltd.

From Ordinary to Extraordinary: Art & Design Problem Solving by Ken Vieth, 1999, Davis Publications, Inc.

Classical Painting Atelier: A Contemporary Guide to Traditional Studio Practice by Juliette Aristides, 2008, Watson-Guptill Publications

Georgia O'Keeffe: Nature and Abstraction, 2007. a joint publication of the Irish Museum of Modern Art and the Vancouver Art Gallery

Louise Nevelson: A Passionate Life by Laurie Lisle, 1990, Summit Books

Expression

It would be easy to continue rambling on about Arnheim's ideas in his book Art and Visual Perception, but it's time to make a final comment and move on. Appropriately, his final chapter is entitled Expression. The previous five hundred pages dealt with the intricacies of visual perception concerning balance, shape, form, space, light, color, movement, and dynamics. In the final chapter, Arnheim writes: From the beginning it was evident that one could not do justice to what we see by describing it only with the measurements of size, shape, wavelength, or speed... As long as one talks about the mere measurements or practical earmarks of visual objects, it is possible to ignore their direct expression.

As an artist, it is my aim to express my viewpoint through paintings. I can't do that very well if I limit myself to draftsmanship or copying exactly what I see. My eggshell paintings are a good example of that. While it's true that we marvel at the skill it takes for an artist to precisely replicate in two dimensions what she sees in three, it's good to remember that more is required for a painting to be deemed a "work of art." That more is meaning, and meaning is revealed through expression. Most of us have a tendency to look at great works by the ancient masters as precise replications of reality. Often, this wasn't the case because expression was the desired effect. Let's look at a couple of examples:

Pieta by Michelangelo is arguably one of the most expressive sculptures in existence. It's almost impossible not to have an emotional reaction when viewing it. Because it looks so realistic, we might be tempted to think that all the proportions are accurate. Look again. There's no way that Mary is the correct proportion for holding an adult male (her son) of that size. Additionally, her face is that of a woman who is much too young to have a son of that age. Michelangelo needed to exaggerate her size, proportions, and youthful beauty in order to express a point. Here's another example:

This silverpoint drawing is attributed to Leondardo DaVinci. She looks very realistic. Again, we might be tempted to think that Leonardo realistically rendered the proportions and features of this young woman's face. In fact, Leonardo believed that most portrait artists naturally tend to make their subjects look like themselves in some way, and he may have, to some degree, altered the appearance of many of his subjects to his own proportions. Again, expression was more important to this master than precise replication.

This brings me to a practice that I perceive as a problem. Artists are becoming more and more reliant on reference photographs when they draw and paint. In an earlier post I mentioned that I attended a watercolor workshop ten years ago where another student was painting from a reference photo of a harbor scene. He took great pains to paint boats, pilings, moorings, landmasses, piers, buildings, seagulls exactly as they appeared in the photograph. His only motivation seemed to be that of precisely replicating the photograph. What's the point of that? Just frame the photo and be done with it. What did this student have to say about his own relationship with this harbor scene? What was his personal viewpoint? As I see it, expression means that you transform what you physically perceive to what you emotionally perceive. It's a translation from what I see to how I think about what I see.

To sum this up: I truly appreciate Arnheim's ideas. They help artists understand the effects of the various elements that go into making a work of art upon the perception of the viewer. I think that's important, because I'm always looking for ways to improve my ability to effectively express my ideas in two dimensions. But, even if I forget some of the principles in this book, I won't forget his summary: expression.