Who and what is right when it comes to the legitimacy of art: Does it need to be true to nature, realistic or based on an ideology? Does it need to be didactic, or do we want to escape into fantasy or should it capture a specific emotional moment in time - or can it simply be decoration? Furthermore, what captivates the spectator and patrons of the arts—is it the subject matter (i.e., upper or lower classes, martyrs, God, heros, female nudes, etc.),—or perhaps it has to have a scientific emphasis such as “optical properties” of light, color, textures, anatomy, etc.--or even still, should it be based on the artists’ masterful skill of the brushstroke? Let’s look at the three works of art I’ve chosen for this cotextual analysis to determine who’s right.
1). Millet’s, The Gleaners. The rural working-class is captured as subject matter as they go quickly through the fields at sunset to pick up the ears of corn missed by the harvesters. It looks like back-breaking repetitive work and certainly a thankless task. Their austerity contrasts with the abundance of harvest: haystacks, sheaves of wheat, cart and harvesters. Use of color hints at festive. The use of stark contrast of light (about a 20:1 contrast ratio of ambient light to dark (a trick used in lighting to create dramatic effect and form!) Colors are brightened and the highlights accent human anatomy—hands, necks, backs (all of which are needed for there labor). Subject matter are people who are obviously poor but the spectator does not get a sense of misery; one may feel compassion, and the scene is soothing (nature, color scheme). These people aren’t begging for food with their hands out, but are following the rules of the landlord. This piece was a bit controversial.
2). Bonheur’s, Plowing in the Nivernais, The Dressing of the Vines. Looking to animals and nature, it’s definitely accurate and extremely realistic --the soil looks so REALISTIC showing a grounded observation of nature! More idyllic than example #1. Bonheur demonstrates a sense of sympathies towards animals. Also note abundant rich soil to grow plants, abundant grass to feed the animals, and shepard doing his job (better than a desk job!) A balanced composition that has harmony, conservative and safe theme (not controversial), and had appeal at that time.
3). Monet’s Haystack Series- Impressionism. In stark contrast of Millet’s The Gleaners, Monet’s subject matter is not realistic in a sense of showing sympathies and/or passions to the unsung heros or to the lower classes' unseen efforts, nor didactic, nor does Monet look to the Romans to infuse mythological nymphs, puttis or Goddesses. The subject matter is simply the mundane haystacks themselves. Based on a series captured at various times of the day during different seasons with all emphasis on the play of light and color.
Which school of thought is correct? Believe it or not, I think an American Impressionist painter, James Whistler (not a French, Italian or Flemish artist!) hinted at it best when he was naming his works of art, “Symphonies” and “Arrangement:….hinting that “just as a symphony can be a pleasing composition of sound, so a painting can be a pleasing arrangement of form, regardless of its subject”. And, as Whistler stated during an art trial ( he was suing a critic who claimed his work had “no purpose”)--“It’s not how much time it takes to create a piece of work that determines the “value”, but it’s the “knowledge gained through a lifetime.”
1). Millet’s, The Gleaners. The rural working-class is captured as subject matter as they go quickly through the fields at sunset to pick up the ears of corn missed by the harvesters. It looks like back-breaking repetitive work and certainly a thankless task. Their austerity contrasts with the abundance of harvest: haystacks, sheaves of wheat, cart and harvesters. Use of color hints at festive. The use of stark contrast of light (about a 20:1 contrast ratio of ambient light to dark (a trick used in lighting to create dramatic effect and form!) Colors are brightened and the highlights accent human anatomy—hands, necks, backs (all of which are needed for there labor). Subject matter are people who are obviously poor but the spectator does not get a sense of misery; one may feel compassion, and the scene is soothing (nature, color scheme). These people aren’t begging for food with their hands out, but are following the rules of the landlord. This piece was a bit controversial.
2). Bonheur’s, Plowing in the Nivernais, The Dressing of the Vines. Looking to animals and nature, it’s definitely accurate and extremely realistic --the soil looks so REALISTIC showing a grounded observation of nature! More idyllic than example #1. Bonheur demonstrates a sense of sympathies towards animals. Also note abundant rich soil to grow plants, abundant grass to feed the animals, and shepard doing his job (better than a desk job!) A balanced composition that has harmony, conservative and safe theme (not controversial), and had appeal at that time.
3). Monet’s Haystack Series- Impressionism. In stark contrast of Millet’s The Gleaners, Monet’s subject matter is not realistic in a sense of showing sympathies and/or passions to the unsung heros or to the lower classes' unseen efforts, nor didactic, nor does Monet look to the Romans to infuse mythological nymphs, puttis or Goddesses. The subject matter is simply the mundane haystacks themselves. Based on a series captured at various times of the day during different seasons with all emphasis on the play of light and color.
Which school of thought is correct? Believe it or not, I think an American Impressionist painter, James Whistler (not a French, Italian or Flemish artist!) hinted at it best when he was naming his works of art, “Symphonies” and “Arrangement:….hinting that “just as a symphony can be a pleasing composition of sound, so a painting can be a pleasing arrangement of form, regardless of its subject”. And, as Whistler stated during an art trial ( he was suing a critic who claimed his work had “no purpose”)--“It’s not how much time it takes to create a piece of work that determines the “value”, but it’s the “knowledge gained through a lifetime.”
So, who’s right? NO ONE AND EVERYONE. There are no absolutes—art just has to have good composition, harmony, balance and chiaroscuro –making it believable thus giving it appeal to the spectators, patrons—and hopefully the critics! Lastly, I believe an artist should stay true to his/her nature making them and their work authentic and one-of a kind—and hopefully demonstrates some accountability and responsibility.
