It kind of depresses me when we get to the parts of history where we can actually attribute achievements to specific people. That’s when we start focusing more on the individual’s work and less on the general development of the time period. At least most of the people mentioned in history books led interesting lives.
I was surprised by how much could be attributed to Jan van Eyck: the three-quarter pose, working outside of a court or guild and being recognized as an individual, layering to get an increased sense of depth, being a spy, etc. He was one revolutionary artist. It was amazing to get to see so many close ups of the “Altar at Ghent.” Sometimes I think it’s easier for us to stand way back and get the overall idea of something and go, “Oh, yeah. That looks like a real person. Sure,” instead of getting up close and seeing all the little things emphasized in a painting of a human being that we would hardly even notice on ourselves. The way Jan van Eyck recorded hairlines and tans, veins, poses and postures, and the way light hits the eyes is really amazing. We’re not as interested in some of those details anymore. I think it was genius to take into account the actual window from the work’s intended location. I know I wouldn’t do that, at least not to such a huge thing with an outside and an inside. That was one detail that really helps to involve the viewer. Not only are the figures “realistic” and recognizable, but they are using the same light as you are. The images seem to be literally in the same plane of existence as us. Maybe that was something they were striving for in the Northern Renaissance. Maybe it wasn’t just about depicting a biblical scene with the addition of pious wealthy families and familiar locations. Maybe it was trying to bring any viewer into the scene, make them feel like they really were there, like it wasn’t just a story told at Christmas. Maybe that was why Jan van Eyck was so frequently commissioned. Everyone wanted to share experiences as literally as they could.
Another thing that interested me was the extent of iconography and symbolism used. The documentary mentioned towards the end that some pieces have limitless interpretations because of all the little symbols and clues artists stuck in, like in “Arnolfini and His Wife.” I can’t believe how an intimate portrait like that has been loved and owned by so many different people/institutions. It’s a little creepy. But at the same time, it’s such an amazing piece that I wouldn’t mind having it. I also think it’s funny how much attention a single painting can get. Both “Altar at Ghent” and “Arnolfini and His Wife” have ridiculous histories, and it just goes to show how much we love figuring out all we can about a single item. We can’t just let it be what it is. We need a back-story. We pay people to find out weird and interesting tidbits about a painting. I think it’s funny.
I also thought it was funny how apparently Burgundian artists and lords would have their art melted down to reused the materials for other works after being on display for a short while. We wouldn’t do that to a non-functional art piece, but we try to recycle everything else from packaging to computers, from clothes to cars, from eyeglasses to cell-phones. Our artwork doesn’t ever seem to get repurposed, just resold.
I'm curious why it depresses you to talk about the achievements of specific people? I'm wondering partly because I think I sympathize; I like thinking about things that happen in art as aspects of humanity rather than one person's stroke of genius.
ReplyDeleteI also really enjoyed the way Van Eyck plays with light in the altar of Ghent. I found it really compelling to imagine myself looking at it in person, and feel like I was inhabiting the same light and space as the figures he painted. I'd love to see that piece someday.
I think that you make a great point when saying that we are beginning to focus more on the individual's work rather than the time period itself. I think that a lot of the individuals work almost ties in with the time period though in some ways. We have heard a lot of naturalism and detail in the lectures as well as Van Eyck's style but we also learned a little about the culture in some of his work such as the Arnolfini Portrait. We learned a little bit about their traditions with marriage and about their style. I agree that we are not learning about the culture as much as last quarter which is sad but I think that we will find that a lot of the culture is within the pieces that we go over.
ReplyDeleteAfter thinking about what you said, I think you made a very valid point. However, because Van Eyck's work was so different than what people were used to seeing, he and his work stood out. I think of it as though his work is a technological break through. Television was a break through when it first came out, as did HD T.V and the internet, especially Facebook. I think that the focus within the text should have been more broad, with mention of other artist and techniques. But maybe for the era, this was the HD of art, realistic and life like.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the way you explained how we percieve paintings from far and sometimes dont notice the small details in the paintings or ourselves. Your Blog seems very insightful and I appreciate you looking for deeper thoughts to discuss rather then stating facts. Ill be back to read more.
ReplyDelete