|
|
    |
|
|
 |
Does Looking at Art Make You Go, "HUH"? A helpful guide to viewing artwork and how to respond to what you see. Have you ever been face to face with a work of art and really not felt comfortable knowing how to respond-knowing what to look for, knowing what to say? Even professional artists are often clueless as to how to respond constructively to another artist's work. We stab at things we like, or don't like, but don't know how to make sense of the whole. Consequently, regardless of our background or experience, we feel awkward, uncomfortable, "unqualified" to comment or express our views on what we see with any degree of confidence. I believe a lot of this stems from a sense of "not knowing the rules" of art, what makes art good or bad. We always fall back on the "Oh, it's all subjective" line when either asked to make a comment or when our comments are questioned. And while that is somewhat true, it is equally true that there are certain elements, certain "ingredients" that go into any work of art, that we can always look for and respond to, regardless of the style, form, or period of the art being looked at. Let me try to show you some of the things artists use to make a picture successful, and impacting to a viewer, and maybe you'll find it easier to get a handle on this thing called "art". The Plan In a nutshell, the process of evaluation will start with determining your overall response to the piece, after which we will examine the content and evaluate the execution. Finally, we will return to your overall response. An outline for evaluating a work of art might look something like this:
Paint Handling / technical expertise
IV. OVERALL RESPONSE (REVISITED) I stress the overall response for a number of reasons. First, it is the essential reason for the picture! That work was created to evoke a response–which may be specific, general, or open-ended. Either way, the artist felt something about that subject, and wanted to convey it–however simple or complex. That was the reason they created that work, and why they created it the way they did. It is easy to jump right into a picture and start tearing it apart (or applauding wildly) over any number of things that stand out or seem important to us. And these particulars are important, but only if they effectively support our overall response. Once we've examined our response, we can investigate the particulars to understand more deeply why we feel as we do. Or then again, maybe after examining them we find we change our minds... Either way, we need to start with a response. That's what the artist was aiming at. I think it is especially important that this process be repeated at the end of an evaluation. Without it, you are again lost in a sea of detail, and possibly leaving a negative impression when, despite your dislike of some particulars in specific, your overall reaction to the piece may be very positive (or vice versa!). If you are evaluating a piece of work by an artist who is actually present, it is crucial for the artist's understanding of your perception of the piece that you repeat your overall response. They may well be aware of the weaknesses in a work, but the overall effect is always what is sought. And besides-you may want to have a positive response, but the particulars distract from the overall impression. That's a problem the artist needs to know about and deal with. OK. Let's go back to our outline, and look at each part more closely. Starting with the... Take time to savor the overall response you have to the work at hand. Think of it as savoring the bouquet of a wine before tasting it, or smelling a delicious meal you're about to eat. How does the picture "smell" to you? Do you like it? Do you not like it? Does it make you happy? Sad? Thoughtful? Excited? Depressed? Sick? No details, just general impressions here. Your overall response is going to be based on the content and/or the execution of the work. Let's look at them separately and break them down a bit. (Return to outline) This consists of three aspects: the Subject Matter, the Focal Point (or point of view) and the Mood. The Subject Matter may be obvious (a person, place or thing), or more abstract (a feeling, a mood, an attitude), or more "conceptual" (comparison/contrast of colors, forms, etc.). In much abstract art, for example, the subject isn't supposed to "be" something (as is commonly thought), but the subject matter may simply be the color shapes on the canvas. Or the texture of the canvas. What emotional responses do they bring? The subject may be pleasant ("The Luncheon of the Boating Party", by Renoir), or disturbing ("The 5th of May", by Francisco de Goya). It may be purely objective–a still life scene for example. Whatever the subject matter is, the artist had a reaction to it. Do you feel positively or negatively about it? The Focal Point may also be called the "center of interest." This is commonly the aforementioned subject matter, but may not be (especially if the subject is abstract). How well is the focal point established? Is your eye drawn to it or do you have to hunt it down? The focal point can be manipulated by the artist using a number of formal elements (I call them pictorial particulars), which I will discuss in the Execution section (see outline). But for now, realize that the Focal Point will be the main thing you are supposed to be looking at in the picture. What is the overall Mood of the piece? Is it convincing? Artists use a variety of elements to establish mood–color, value (light and dark), detail (or lack of it), size of objects, distance from the subject. Can you see what elements in the painting support the mood you feel? (Return to outline) Looking back at our outline, we see that execution would cover such aspects as overall composition, handling of "pictorial particulars" (drawing, color, value, texture, edges), paint handling/technical expertise, confidence and consistency. In looking at the elements of execution, particularly in the realm of what I call pictorial particulars, one will want to look for a variation in the elements–contrasts, repeated use of colors, shapes, etc.–to see how these elements were used to convey the artist's idea or response to the subject matter. The overall pattern of elements should be interesting and balanced (unless of course the artist is deliberately trying to establish a sense of tension in the piece, in which case they may keep the "balance" off to keep the viewer "on edge"). Let's look at the separate elements. Also note that all of these elements apply to any medium used (oil, watercolor, etc.). Our tendency is to focus more on technique–how well a medium is handled and used, rather than the more fundamental aspects of "how good is the picture?" Remember, the name of the game is creating a good picture, not "doing a good watercolor" (oil, whatever). Certainly each medium has technical problems of their own, and it is up to the artist to handle the medium well enough to "say" what he/she wants to "say." A teacher of mine once said that all great art is made great by this quality alone: how well it is composed. Simply stated, composition is what it seems–how well a painting is composed. That is, how well do all the elements "sit" in the picture? Elements like subject matter, shapes, angles, perspective, etc. Remember what I said about abstract art, and that the "subject matter" may simply be color shapes? This applies to that too. The importance of these formal elements is that the artist will use them to guide your eye through a painting, to make you focus on what they want you to see, in the order they will want you to see it. Much like a movie director, the artist can control the contrast and line quality of a painting or drawing to guide your eye to the thing they want you to see first (usually the point of the sharpest contrast, with the sharpest edges). They can exaggerate or sublimate an element (a figure, piece of fruit, whatever) in such a way that you won't see it right away; can you feel the artist directing your eye as you look at a particular picture? Drawing (or "Draftsmanship" if you want to sound really sophisticated) simply refers to the way the subject matter is rendered. Is the piece "drawn" well? Are the proportions/perspective/relationships/shapes/etc. correct? Are they accurately (or in the case of deliberate or stylistic distortion) appropriately rendered? Most people don't realize that drawing is the foundation of all painting. If you can't draw, you won't be a convincing painter. How many times have you seen an almost great piece of art ruined by an awkward rendering of perspective? Or by the window of a building not being properly aligned with the other windows or doorway? The color, texture and paint quality may be very inviting and enjoyable, but the accuracy of the drawing takes away from the intended Is the color effective? Does it fit the mood/subject of the painting? Color can be described with many terms; hue refers to the specific color (i.e., red, green, blue, etc.). Saturation refers to the intensity of the hue (in other words, how 'saturated with pigment' is the color). A red can be bright or subdued, intense or weak–other ways of saying the same thing. Is there a variety of intensity and brightness? Value refers to the lightness or darkness of a color. No matter what the color, there are light values, and dark values (yes, even of yellow–even of white!). Note the difference between value and brightness; you can have a bright dark red, or a dull light green. Intensity and value are different things. Are the values accurate (or again, appropriate)? As before, look for variety and contrast. The connection of values into large masses often helps to unify a picture... can you see the large masses of value in the painting you are looking at? Do they unify the picture elements in a way that enhances the artist's statement or purpose? Another formal element that artists use to add visual interest to a painting is texture. Texture is a term that can apply to the overall quality of paint on the surface (is it heavy and thick? thin and smooth?) or to the visual surface–that is, the visual texture created by the elements in the picture. Sometimes artists exaggerate the use of texture to remind themselves and the viewer that this is, after all, a two-dimensional entity, not the real thing. (They may also exaggerate one of the formal elements to remind us that it's a painting, not a recreation of the real thing.) Edges–where one surface overlaps another–can be manipulated to guide your eye through a piece, as well as to enhance the realism of a painting. Are the edges in the piece you are examining hard? Soft? Do they effectively describe the subject matter of the work? Cameras make all edges hard, but the human eye doesn't see that way. Manipulating edges is one of the most effective ways of guiding your eye through a painting. Paint handling/technical expertise refers to just what you'd think–how the medium is handled. Some media are more difficult to control than others. Watercolor, while probably the public's most popular medium, is one of the hardest to master. Oils are more forgiving, but can be hard to make look "right." Any medium requires a lot of time and practice to get used to, and the artist's confidence and experience will always show in their work. A mature artist will have a consistency to the overall paint handling in a given piece. A less practiced artist's work may have areas of strength or weakness in any given piece. Look for consistency! (Return to outline) IV. Overall Response (Revisited) Finally, after studying the work by focusing on its technical aspects, try to remember how you felt about the piece when you first saw it. Recall your initial Overall Response. Do you still feel that way? Have you changed your mind? Either way, you will now have a clearer understanding of why you feel the way you do. And you will be able to describe, in a clear and objective way, why you believe a work of art is successful or strong, or why it is weak and in need of improvement. You can still enjoy and appreciate a given piece despite–or perhaps because of–its weak spots. (Return to outline) A Word About Art Criticism and Art History Critics and art historians often talk of artists "making statements" in or through their art. A given work (or an artist's body of work) is alleged to be a reaction to this or that social ill, political viewpoint, expression of hidden angst, etc. This is generally put forth confidently and decisively, as if some concrete evidence or reason dictates such a conclusion. Artist's statements are not always that profound. Frequently they are as simple as "I think this is beautiful. Therefore, I have painted it." If you go to the National Gallery of Art (or some other venerable institution of art), you will see copious quantities of verbiage on the artist's alleged hidden intent, meaning, philosophical/social/societal construct, that led to the "pouring out" of an artist's feelings on this or that issue/subject/concern etc.–you get the picture. A lot of art critics' and art historians' "analysis" or "interpretation" is more based on history or social psychology (not to mention the critic's own fantasy and wild imagination) than anything the artist was actually concerned with. It is true that some artists will paint political/reactionary works to convey a conviction, truth, or point of view–especially in the more 'avante garde' circles of the art world. But critics or historians rarely if ever talk about the properties of the art we discussed earlier that are the things that make the piece great, like the details of the composition, emphasis of certain colors, elements, or how accurately the work conveys its statement. When they start getting into hyper–philosophical emotional dribble-drabble, ignore it! Get what legitimate history you can out of their comments, (which may indeed give you new insight into how the times or culture in which an artist lived influenced them in certain ways), but don't buy their "interpretations" of the art. My college art history text still has the words "Bunk!" and "Garbage!" written in highlighter over entire paragraphs where the author waxed philosophical. A good rule of thumb is to simply respond to what's in front of you. If the artist has anything to say, it'll be decipherable from just what you see, and if there is any social/philosophical commentary or statement, it should be self evident. (Return to outline) In Conclusion
While our responses to art may indeed be subjective, there are certain criteria on which you can base your views. These are the same criteria that the artists themselves use in the creation of a piece, and are no more mystical or ethereal than those that we have discussed here. Understanding a work of art is not a mystery. Explaining your reactions to a work of art doesn't have to be either, if you remember to focus on your overall response, examine the content, evaluate the execution, and restate your overall response.
|
|
|