Archive for the ‘Virgil’s Thoughts’ Category

h1

Practice?

May 25, 2020

All I can say when someone refers to an artist’s ‘practice’, I scream. I always thought that art students practice in art school and when they become good at it, they become artists. I know that lawyers, and dentists have practices, but that usually refers to the fact that they have an office somewhere where their customers go to be parted from their money. An artist, like the poet, is an honourable calling and does not need an office unless you want to call a studio an office.

I can picture my practice now as an art critic and I do have an office that I prefer to call a library. Anyways it is a room full of books. I will hire a receptionist and artists could call in to make an appointment. “Yes, there is an opening next Wednesday at 3:15.” Then the artist would drop by my practice and we could exchange art talk for thirty minutes. After that they pay my standard fee. (Actually, my standard fee for bullshit, up to now, has been free.) What a business model. After all, I do have a BFA and MFA, so I must be entitled to a practice.

Speaking of visual arts degrees. I understand that a number of universities in North America and Europe are offering PhDs or other forms of doctorates in studio ‘practice’ (that word again). Another chance for over certification in the visual arts. Granted it gives universities longer time to make money from art students in these times of astronomic tuitions. My worry is that these degrees will become mandatory for teaching positions in universities and art schools. I had a look recently at what it would cost today to get my BFA (San Francisco Art Institute) and MFA (Indiana University) paying today’s full tuition. It would be in the range of $320,000. Add three or four more years for a PhD and it could easily be more than a half a million dollars. It would not leave a lot of room for a newly minted Dr. Artist to buy a tube of paint.

Reading the information that I have received online for some visual arts studio doctorate degrees, mostly from Europe, I would put them on a par with executive MBAs. Give us some money, a lot of money, and we will give you some letters to put behind your name and a nice framed diploma, perhaps from the University of Lower Molvanîa. How much nicer it would be to own an art work made by Dr. Smith than one from Pete Smith. For some this over-certified art stuff might work. Already I have seen work in various art fairs, another scam, described by critics as MFA art and it was not intended as a compliment. Think how much more money could be suckered out of the stupid with DFA (Doctor of Fine Arts) art.

It would be nice to think that more years in a university or art school would result in better art. That is not likely. I still remember a visiting artist telling my students that why he went to graduate school to get his MFA was so that he could learn how to talk about his art. In his case it was true because his paintings on their own said nothing. This true tale happened at least thirty years ago, and I am sure that art students are still learning to talk about their art not only at the graduate level, but at the undergraduate level as well. It would be wonderful if all contemporary art spoke for itself.

I do not know how many art galleries I have visited over the last fifty years and been greeted by empty, no art walls that instead feature a manifesto pasted to the wall by an artist telling why there was no art. This was sometimes backed by a statement by the gallery’s director or testimonial of the artist’s genius by an art critic. I have personally seen this phenomenon worldwide and a little of this bullshit goes a long way. A long time ago I gave a paper, in Poland I think, titled WYSIWYG (What you see is what you get.). I stand by that statement which, of course, means if there is nothing there, then there is nothing there. Look, if someone wants to pay big money to buy a certificate of ownership of an idea from an artist of duct taping a banana to a wall, who am I to stop him? But beware there could be limited editions, and there was in this case, and there are an awful lot of bananas and rolls of duct tape out there.

Marcel Duchamp has a lot to answer for, but he was a pretty good painter and not a bad chess player. Most of his jokes are over a hundred years old and were funny at the time. I think that he would find the idea of him having an art practice ridiculous. Remember would-be-artists, that practice makes perfect.

Bicycle Wheel — Marcel Duchamp

©Virgil Hammock, Sackville NB, Canada, 25 May 2020.

h1

The Picture is the Thing

May 19, 2020

Recently, I reposted a colour photograph Pablo Picasso talking to Brigitte Bardot taken in 1956 on Facebook. The post was immediately bombarded by replies on how awful a man Picasso was and hence a bad artist whose art we should never look at again. They surmised from the photograph that he was hitting on Bardot and hoping to get laid. This surprised me, but should not have. I posted it because I thought he was a rather nice picture of two important French people in the mid 20th century.

Picasso was sitting on set of stairs several feet away from Bardot, apparently talking to her. There was no way from looking at the photograph that you could grasp the conversation, nor was there a caption telling what was going on, but this did not stop people from guessing and most vilifying Picasso in the process. I know that a picture is worth ten thousand words, but this one could have benefited from a one sentence caption to wit, Picasso: “Brigitte would you like have sex with me? The wife is away.”

When I tried to explain that I thought that Picasso was a rather important artist whose art changed the course of 20th century art, they would have none of that. I admitted that he was not a sensitive metrosexual and would not meet the high moral standards of the first quarter of the 21st century, in truth neither would I, but that was not enough. I think that the general idea is that we should dig up his bones and jump on them.

If there is one major theme that I have been writing about over the last fifty plus years is that the art work is the thing and the artist only makes it. Most viewers only have a vague idea of the character of the artist who painted a picture they admire and it gets increasing vague the older the painting is. This operates on the theory of what you don’t know doesn’t hurt you or ignorance is bliss.

Let’s look at Picasso. If he had only painted Guernica he would have earned a place in art history, but add on, La Vie, Les Demoiselles d’ Avignon, his Blue Period, Rose Period, and Cubism and it is hard not to agree that he was an important and great artist despite his character faults. Who do you punish by not looking at the work of this dead artist? I am pretty sure that being dead puts Picasso out of the picture, if you will forgive the pun. There is a really long list of artists of questionable character who who have produced great art and let us not leave out Anonymous who may or may not be questionable.

Aesthetics are pretty much a dead issue into today’s art criticism not to mention art itself. It has been replaced by curators and critics, produced by university graduate programmes, who fancy themselves as social scientists. They see art as a means to push their ideas for a progressive society. There are roots for this in the writings of Arnold Hauser in his The Social History of Art* which I read in 1961 and thought had some merit. But Hauser always put the horse before the cart in that art led theory and not the other way around. There is a case to be made for art in history rather than art history and this is what Hauser did. Great art gives us a reflection of its time, but does so on its own terms and those terms are that of the artist.

Where things get fucked up is with the theories of Post Modernism and, in particular, Post Structuralism. Here the cart is before the horse. Literature is reduced to text and art works become objects to advance theory. The result is often unreadable articles and books, sometimes are even more unreadable when they are translated from an other language, like French. Post Structuralism is really a linguistic theory goes back to the ideas Ferdinand de Saussure and advances with by Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Ronald Barthes, and Jean Baudrillard. What any of this has to do with the visual arts is beyond me. Not that I did not try to figure it out, but a lot of fellow academics in the arts seem to have made a career where I failed as Post Structuralists and sometimes as well Neo-Marxists (not that I have anything against Marxism). But here we are with lot of bad art art made cowed artists who are worried about appropriation, gender, imagined past bad behaviour (you name it), and being called out by some nit-wit on social media or lectured to by a self righteous Social Justice Warrior. It is a wonder that anyone would want to make art these days.

What we need is a return to the day of ‘up yours’ art. Make unapologetic art and if someone, or a group of someones, do not like it, it’s their problem. Of course, there is the chance of truly offensive art that should not see the light of day, but even then care should be taken. A look at the criticism that most art movements endured, be it German Expressionism or the Group of Seven should give pause to excessive censorship. We need art that challenges us that includes art made by artists of questionable character. Let us not forget that Caravaggio was a murderer. As far as I know Picasso was not.

© Virgil Hammock, Sackville NB, Canada, 18 May 2020.

* Hauser, Arnold, The Social History of Art, Vintage Books, New York, 1958 (Four Volumes paperback. Originally published in Germany in 1951.)

h1

Fade to Black

May 10, 2020

High culture has pretty much disappeared along with the dress code. I never thought fifty years ago that nearly all people would be dressing like slobs in 2020. Yet, here we are with people wearing pyjama bottoms when they fly even in business or first class and men wearing baseball hats and sweat shirts to funerals. A walk down the main street of the small university town where I live, and yes, it even called Main Street, exhibits a parade of dull, darkly dressed people in t-shirts, jeans, and of course base ball caps. Admittedly, the more fashion minded wear their caps backwards. This has nothing to do with class. The rich, middle class, and poor are all dressed the same. The difference might be that some of the academics and hipsters think that their branded rock themed t-shirts are ironic while the others might actually like the bands their t-shirts advertise. We are, after all, a university town. Sadly this form of dress seem to be a world wide style. Where men have to ‘dress up’, say in government or business, they all seem to have the same dark blue, single breasted, suit, white shirt, and a dismal tie. Women in the same professional classes are equally, dreary dressed.

Is this important? Yes. It signifies carelessness and a race to the bottom not only in style, but in high culture. It is hard not to think of Edward Gibbon and his The decline and fall of the Roman Empire and the thought of the Roman elite dressing like the Barbarians just before the shit hit the fan. True, we live in a time of high technology, but that has brought us the likes of Facebook and with it universal stupidity on a global scale. I have to admit that I dabble in social media, Facebook included, but all that proves is that I have morbid fascination with an endgame and my own brand of stupidity. I am writing this in my house with floor to ceiling book shelves full of books that I have actually read and hundreds of CDs and LPs of classical music. Friends think that I am crazy and that all that information could be on a hard drive or couple of flash sticks, but that would not be same as my things provide me with a warm physical womb to which I can retreat. If that is not a sexual metaphor, nothing is. Others just think that I am a crazy old man living in the past. Both my friends and the others have it at least partially correct. I am deranged by most people’s standards. The good part is that I am harmless.

I have loads of time to reflect on the ins and outs of the decline of high culture as I, like a lot of people, am under a table in my home, hiding from the modern day Apocalypse of COVID-19. I am told that being over eighty that. because of the virus, death is just around the corner and that I should not answer the door as it might be the Grim Reaper. I am listening to Mozart’s Piano Concerto # 21, KV 467, a sad one, right now on streaming radio from Venice which is just more reason for melancholy. Things did not end well for Mozart, but he did add a thing or two to hight culture. Sadly, far too few listen to Mozart and his ilk these days. Most people I know appear to want to hear Alternative or Classic Rock and our national radio station, CBC Music, gives them ample opportunity to do so. I am happy for them, but not so much for myself.

So what is this high culture that I am lamenting its decline? It is about the arts from around the Renaissance, with roots in Greco-Roman and Judaic cultures, and leaving aside the Dark and Middle Ages, until the late 20th century. Sometimes fondly refereed to as Western Civilization.* This concern of its loss would certainly identify me as a hopelessly out of date elitist. I am guilt as charged. I fully understand that there are major problems with what is called Western Civilization. It has a long. history of misery, war, and racism. In my lifetime, I have lived through periods of time that I wish I had not. The world is not a pretty place and it never has been.

My concern is with the things that people have made, and made well, during this period of high culture, be it literature, music, or the visual arts and now seem to be in a period of decline in quality. It is perhaps due to a democratization of the arts where everyone is an artist and everything is art; add to that the demonization of the concept of genius and result is a surfeit of mediocrity. Let me be clear: art is an addition to a society. Paintings, music, and novels do not so much make a society as record it. Wars, and their misery are not stopped by art, but Goya’s paintings and prints certainly pointed out their shortcomings. Shostakovich’s 7th Symphony, The Leningrad, did not stop the siege of Leningrad by Nazis, but it inspired its defenders who did. All Quiet on the Western Front, a novel by Erich Maria Remarque, defined the horrors of World War One. Of course, despite Remarque’s novel, The War to End All Wars was followed twenty years later by World War Two.

Art, the making of art, is hard. Art is the result of study and practice—much practice. The idea of genius, while genuine, is overrated and is used by the less talented artists to explain why their own efforts fail to match the work of masters. Renaissance painters did not have magic paint brushes or secret recipes that made their paintings so different in quality than much of those in contemporary art. They just knew how to paint better. It was the result of long study and practice. Writing a symphony is hard as is writing a good novel. The men and women who have put their work, time, and effort into high culture have helped define what is noble in civilization. We need to remember that we are never far from barbarism. Great civilizations come and go and are often followed by periods of darkness. I think that we are pretty close to a new dark age, if not living in one already.

©Virgil Hammock, Sackville NB, Canada, 7 May 2020.

*Yes, I know that there are other civilizations than Western Civilization, but one civilization is enough to worry about.

h1

Mastering the Good — Stephen Scott

April 27, 2020

Man in Yellow — Stephen Scott

There is no question that these are dark time times and dark times call for light. That light is beauty. The beautiful comforts us in times like these when life itself is in question. I have been writing about the beautiful for well over half a century. Generally, I have been making my case for beauty through the visuals arts. Of course, the beautiful exist in many forms and all of them are good. Here I am going to limit myself to painting and to one painter who creates beautiful objects, the New Brunswick artist, Stephen Scott.

I chose Stephen because I know him and his work very well. You can check out a very long conversation that I had with him on my blog under the heading Stephen Paints a Picture which resulted in an exhibition of his work at the Beaverbrook Art Gallery in Fredericton, New Brunswick. While you are on my blog you might want to read my post Art and Beauty that is also the name of my blog. Both of these articles were long before the current crisis with COVID-19.

Stephen and I often talk in circles and we talk a lot. In the current crisis our conversations have been limited to phone calls and FaceTime. Of course, we usually talk about what is art. He is, and as always been, a realist painter and I am a champion of realism, but also have a fondness for abstract and non-objective painting. I have alway been under the impression that content in art is secondary to its physical qualities. Here Stephen and I often part ways. I believe that I have to be attracted to a painting first by its qualities as an art work, craft and beauty, before I move on to content. This does not mean that content is unimportant. Content is often key to an artwork’s place in art history. Paintings can be beautifully done and totally devoid of serious meaning such as much of 18th century British portraiture. However, I have problems with the reverse. A badly done painting, regardless of its content, remains bad art or, as I would maintain, not art at all. An example would be Damien Hirst’s Spot Paintings. Damien Hirst and. his American counterpart, Jeff Koons are not artists, but con men. If you think they are artists I suggest that you stop reading this article here as you will not like it.

Stephen has often told me what separates art from non-art is content then goes on to use his painting as an example. I reply that a landscape is a landscape and its content is landscape. His painting Southside is a view of a bridge crossing the Saint John River in Fredricton. It is very wonderful painting and it is of a particular place, which is un-named in the title, but that place would be of little importance to people outside of Fredericton or New Brunswick, but they may still like the painting for its quality as a landscape. Viewers generally like paintings because they hold up as works of art even if some of them do not consciously know why. They know intuitively where things should be in a painting as they read it left to right and from the bottom left to the top right. North Side certainly checks off all those boxes. It reads well as a picture. In short it is a good painting.

Southside — Stephen Scott

To be fair Stephen and I have a different definition of the term content. I believe that when he speaks of content he is referring to the choice of subject matter that he finds worthy to paint. My idea of content is more its philosophic and or political meaning. Stephen has a good point because because it is up to his vision what to paint in a picture be they of a landscape, city scape, street scene, or of people. If an artist is using their art to illustrate a belief like their dislike of war it is something else again. Take the work of Kathe Kollwitz say compared to that Claude Monet. Both fine artists, but very different in their approach to art making. I must admit that I am in the Monet camp as I like ‘pretty’ pictures, but that does not take away from the quality of Kollwitz’s art.

Another point that Stephen has forcefully made to me about the difference between art and non-art is the idea of intention. A real artist has the intention of making art. Art making is not intuitive, but done with intention. Granted passable art can be made by a elephant painting with a brush in its trunk rather like a thousand monkeys typing Shakespeare, but it is not the intention of the elephant or the monkeys to produce art. It is more likely to gain peanuts. Hopefully a good artist would not need a thousand tries to get a passable painting. A good artist sets out each time with the intention of making art.

I have over the years watched Stephen painting as I have had other artists, but it is he that I have watched the most. I have seen him work from a pencil sketch, to an oil study, to a finished painting. He makes strenuous demands on himself. I have seen him work all day on a painting and in the end wipe it all out and start over the next day. This sometimes over my objection that what he was destroying was perfectly good. In the end his judgement was sound, but it is hard to watch. Major paintings sometimes take months to complete. An example, other than the portrait of myself described in Stephen Paints a Picture (Man in a Yellow Shirt), is Tableau with Three Figures.

Tableau with Three Figures — Stephen Scott

This painting is the result of a series photographs that he took at my 80th birthday in the summer of 2018. ( Stephen seldom works from photographs, but directly from observation.) It’s a evening scene through a glass door of three people sitting at a dining room table. The figure in the centre, shown from the back is myself, the woman to the left is my friend, Gina Bradet, and the other partial figure across from me is another friend, Chris Mackay. The painting is very different from its photographic sources and in every way better. Anyone who knows the three of us in the picture would recognize us immediately even though the figures are very broadly painted. The lighting comes from several directions, but it all seems correct. The colour of a mid-summer evening sparkles. I watched this painting go through several cycles and. in the end, it is a beautiful painting.

To return to my earlier point about content in Stephen’s work. Tableau with Three Figures is not titled Virgil’s 80th Birthday Party, but it speaks to a more universal theme that of three friends enjoying each other’s company on a Sunday evening. This event could be happening anywhere. It reminds me of an Ingmar Bergman film, Smiles of a Summer Night, but that is just me showing my age. How we look at a painting depends on our own history. As an art critic, art teacher, and artist I look at a painting in a different way than an art lay person. Different, not better. However, I think that most viewers will enjoy looking at Tableau with Three Figures and gain something from doing so.

Northern Gothic — Stephen Scott

Stephen’s Northern Gothic is another work that operates on many levels, but can be easily understood by many as just a beautiful painting. He would be annoyed by me using the words ‘just a beautiful painting’. It is a compliment as contemporary beautiful paintings are few and far between and Northern Gothic is obviously far more complex in its meaning and intention. The title is, of course, a take on Grant Woods 1930 painting American Gothic, but there the resemblance ends. Stephen’s painting is far more painterly than Woods’s work. American Gothic is social commentary and Northern Gothic is not. Stephen’s painting is a self portrait with his wife. It is a mirror image painted from life. The history of art is full of images of artists and their wives. The best examples are by Rubens and Rembrandt. Stephen is very aware of art history and admires flemish painting as do I. The use of space is more complex in Northern Gothic than in American Gothic and its mood is far darker. It is hard to figure out where things are in Stephen’s painting, but it seems to all hold together and make sense.

Painting is artifice and serves no useful purpose. They are objects placed on a wall that are meant to deceive or, at least, that is what Plato would have us believe. Plato had many useful ideas this was not one of them. Art, of course, serves a purpose, in fact many purposes. Chief among them is to satisfy the soul. We need satisfaction more than ever in these trying days COVID-19. One way is making art and another is looking at it. Some of us can do both. At the moment most of us are isolated in our homes and art galleries are closed. We are reduced to viewing art by digital means that is a poor way of looking at the paintings of Stephen Scott where their physical presence is so important. We must rely on our imaginations and wait for the time when we can see his, and other artists, work in person.

Let me leave you with the words of Immanuel Kant from his Critique of Judgement, part 51, Of the Division of the Beautiful Arts: “Among the formative arts I would give the palm to painting, partly because as the art of delineation it lies at the root of all the other formative arts, and partly because it can penetrate much further into the the region of ideas and can extend the field of intuition in conformity with them further than the others can.”* Take that Plato.

* Philosophies of Art and Beauty, Edited by Albert Hofstadter and Richard Kuhns, The Modern Library, New York (Random House), 1964, pg. 331.

©Virgil Hammock, Sackville NB, Canada, 25 April 2020.

h1

Concerning The Spiritual In Art

January 23, 2019

Concerning the Spiritual in Art is the title of a small book written in 1910 and published in 1911 by Wassily Kandinsky. The reason I bring it up is because I believe that it has important things to say about art that are just as relevant today as they were in 1910. When I say a small book, I mean it. The current copy I have just runs to sixty-five pages of rather large print. I first read this book as an undergraduate in the early 1960s. Those were the times when everyone was looking for the spiritual though mainly through the use of drugs or a superficial understanding of Eastern philosophy and/or religion.

Kandinsky’s book turned out to be a text more on how to make art than a primer to instant bliss. His ideas of the spiritual were internal to him and turned out to make a lot of sense to me. When I first read the book, he was already he was already a favourite artist of mine. While I was in high school I had a framed large reproduction of one of his abstract paintings in my bedroom. I had lived in England during my first two years of high school and had seen his work in galleries there and in France. I fell in love with his work, and that of Paul Klee, an artist that he worked closely with. I still like their work even through most people think that I have a bias for realist art. That is just not true. I have a bias for good art which both Kandinsky and Klee produced in droves.

I have been having ongoing discussions with friends, both artists and others, about how good art comes about. The subject of abstraction came up. This led back to Concerning the Spiritual in Art and a rereading the text. I bought my current copy a couple of years ago when I was writing a text on abstract art in New Brunswick and could not find a copy in my library. It was not easy buying a copy. It appeared to be out of print. I ended up by having a copy printed by Kessinger Publishing’s Rare Reprints. Believe it or not this service is not expensive. I think I paid around ten bucks for the book.

I assume that many of you who are reading this article know who Kandinsky was and his importance to the history of art, but for those of you do not, let me re-cap. He was Russian painter and art theorist born in Moscow in 1866 and died in Neuilly-sur-Seine, France in 1944. He was the founder of the Blaue Reiter Group in 1911 (Named after his painting of the same name.). He was in the Armory Show in New York in 1913. He was a noted teacher at the Bauhaus both in Weimar and Dassau. He is credited to be one of the first totally abstract painters. His book of poetry Sounds was published the same year as Concerning The Spiritual in Art. There is much more, but needless to say; he was a player in the development of modern art.

His translator, Michael T. H. Sadler, states that Kandinsky is painting music and there much in his painting and writing that backs that idea up and along, of course, with his use of colour as pure abstract form. He was a follower of the theories of Mme. Helen P. Blavatsky and Theosophy as was Lawren S. Harris who was studying in Germany (1904-08) just before the time that Kandinsky was writing Concerning The Spiritual In Art. Colour, according to Theosophy, had mystical and spiritual qualities in particular the primaries—red, yellow, and blue. Kandinsky’s writes about their physical qualities in art as well like the obvious of yellow coming forward and blue or purple retreating. You can see Theosophy’s influence in many of Lawren S. Harris’s later works particularly in his abstract paintings. (His son, Lawren P. Harris, who hated be called Lawren Harris, Jr., was influenced naturally enough as well by Theosophy.)

Something else I find interesting in Kandinsky’s writing is that he always refers to art as she. But of course, being a 19th century man, he always refers to artists as he. But before I get into an argument, let us remember that his biggest influence was a woman, Mme. Blavatsky. Kandinsky tells us: “ External beauty is one element of a spiritual atmosphere. But beyond this positive fact (that what is beautiful is good) it has the weakness of a talent not used in the full.” Pg.14. Those five words in the brackets have always been important to me—what is beautiful is good. Of course, you need to define ‘good’. That is a question that has defied philosophers for some time. I will just fall back on, in the case of art, I know good when I see it and leave it at that. Blavatsky can be a bit with her ideas off as when Kandinsky quotes her: “The earth will be a heaven in the twenty-first century in comparison with what is now,” he goes on to say, “and with these words she ends her book.” Well, you cannot be right all the time”. pg. 22

Kandinsky wrote with insight about Cezanne, Matisse and Picasso when they were contemporary artists. Cezanne had just died in 1906. Matisse and Picasso were very much in their prime. He says that Cezanne was able to find inner life in everything. He is more critical of Matisse stating that he cannot refrain from conventional beauty and that his pictures possess only outer charm. He is more impressed by the artist’s use of colour. I disagree and feel that Matisse’s art offers far more than conventional beauty and certainly has more to offer than charm. We do agree about his use of colour. Of ‘the Spaniard’ Picasso he states that he goes from one new innovation to the next. He was particularly interested in Cubism and how Picasso deconstructed form. Kandinsky ends by stating: “In their pursuit of the same supreme end Matisse and Picasso stand side by side, Matisse representing colour and Picasso form.” pp. 26-27

There is much more that can be said about this little book, but I recommend that you read it yourself. I think that you will discover that really new ideas are hard to come by. Someone else has likely, as Kandinsky, thought of them more than one hundred years ago. So give up on trying to be original and just do as best you can and remember that is what Jan van Eyck said about his art in the 1430s.

©Virgil Hammock, Sackville NB, Canada, 15 January 2019.

h1

What is Art and What is its Job

January 16, 2019

I have been having a running discussion with an artist friend, Stephen Scott, on the subject of what is art and what is its job. Actually I have been kicking the idea around both in my head and with others for well over fifty years, but recently the topic has become more focused as I become more disturbed by what passes for art in this the first quarter of the 21st century. By art I mean visual art. I will leave other art forms to others. Certainly, these are my own opinions and frankly, at this time of my life, I do not feel like debating them. If people do not like them; it is their problem and they are free to express their own ideas. I might even like them.

Art is not half-baked sociology expressed freely in any form of visual art. Heart felt concerns about the state of the world is not enough turn an object into a work of art. Here I am limiting myself to traditional visual art, objects, and leaving out performance art, as well as video and film, not because I do not think that they are art, but because they raise another whole set of problems not central to my argument. Of course, art can process powerful content, but first it must be a work of art. This is rather a circular argument as I need to define the terms art and content which would take a book rather the poke in the eye with a stick that I attempting here. By content I simply mean subject matter and by art an object that has aesthetic powers to transform the experience of the viewer hopefully in a pleasant or powerful way. The first part of the last sentence is simplistic and the second part, at best, confusing.

Subject matter in a painting can be as simple as being a still life, landscape, or a portrait. Abstraction can also be subject matter, all be it abstract, but again raising another set of problems. Thematic subject matter like feminism, racial politics or any political content cloud the issue. One can dismiss an apple as being poorly painted and get away with it, but dismissing a painting with cultural and/or social trappings, no matter how poorly executed, is another matter for an art critic. It is a no win situation and best avoided.

I have alway been of the opinion that beauty is a safe option of approaching the question of what art is. Of course, there is the problem of definition of beauty and, leaving aside the old chestnut that it is in the eye of the beholder, that beauty is bound by culture and very culture has its own idea of beauty. Actually I do not believe this and good case can be made that beauty is more universal and tied to biology and visual psychology. Hence, we can find art from other cultures beautiful. Two recent books make this case far better than I: one, The Art Instinct (2009) by the late Denis Dutton and, two, The Origins of Creativity by Edward O. Wilson (2017), but there many others as well. My point being is that I am not being original in the idea that beauty is universal and common to us all whether one admits to it or not. Beauty is related to pleasure and pleasure is good thing therefore a good painting invokes pleasure and is a good thing. Certainly, a good painting can also invoke ideas beyond beauty and the best paintings do.

Now, what is the job of art? Is it beyond invoking the well being of pleasure? Pleasure can be enough and is something that is needed by the human race. Visual art is not the only thing that can bring us pleasure. There is literature, poetry, music, drama, and let’s not leave out sex from the long list. Again, I will limit my arguments to painting. I do understand that there were, and are, societies where idea the idea of painting does not exist, I assume that they have a concept of beauty.

Back to the job description of art. Aesthetics are at the root of what art does. I taught a course on the principles of art criticism that included the philosophy of beauty for most of my career as a university professor. It covered Western philosophers from roughly around Plato to Heidegger. Yes, I realize that it was a bunch of dead white guys, but that was made clear in the course description and there is only so much you can cover in twenty-six weeks. Yes, there is philosophy other than Western philosophy and there is a sex other than men who are and were philosophers. My students were made aware of the exclusions and we did discuss why these exclusions were central to egocentric Western thought as it evolved. What was discussed was the aesthetic object and how it was perceived as the beautiful over period of roughly two thousand years.

The aim of the beautiful is to achieve a certain sense of bliss, or whatever you want to call it, through some sort of stimulus and the case of my argument here is that a stimulus can be a visual art object. That defines the major job of an art work. Some art succeeds in doing this job and some do not. Again, leaving content aside, the art work that does not possess beauty, while perhaps worthy, is not art, but something else. There is much more to be said than is covered in this short article.

Work (Manchester) by Ford Madox Brown 1865

h1

The Bach Project — Prologue

September 16, 2018

A couple of weeks ago while staying at a friend’s summer home in Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec, I had a revelation. I had just turned eighty and was thinking that, despite my best efforts, I was getting old. The next twenty years were likely not to be twenty years and would prove fatal. What to do? It came to me as I sat in a quiet white bedroom of that 170 year old house that I needed to figure it all out, life that is—what did it mean to be alive. What came to me was the music of Johann Sebastian Bach, in particular his cantatas, and how they related to paintings that I knew.

Allow me to back up a bit to 1959, the year I started art school in San Francisco and the year I became aware of Bach’s cantatas. I was just out of the army and had just turned twenty-one. I had managed to talk my way into a job at a record store in North Beach that specialized in imported exotic European classical records. I needed a way to pay for my education and that seemed as good a job as any. It changed forever my taste in music. I knew a little something about classical music before that as my parents had a small collection of classical records that I had listened to and that bit of knowledge is why the owner of the store gave me the job. But now I had thirty or forty hours a week to listen to music in the shop. Yes, I did work full-time and go to school full-time, but I was young and stupid at the time. As soon as I started listening to the vocal sacred music of Bach I was hooked and that took about all of a week.

I should state at the outset that I am a lifetime committed atheist and that my abiding interest in both religious music and art has everything to do aesthetics and nothing to do with faith at least my faith or, more correctly, lack of faith. I’m quite sure that a majority of the religious composers and painters that move me with their art were devoted to their faith. In truth, I admire their religious beliefs and, at times, wish I could share them. Only, I believe that when I’m dead that I am truly gone. I will not miss me as I will not exist and my friends will soon get me out of their minds as well. Perhaps some of my work will hang on for awhile, but I doubt that as I am no Bach or Dürer. If this seems dismal, so be it, but it doesn’t bother me. I am, however, interested in what moves me as a human being. Otherwise there seems no reason for art and I have devoted my life to art.
Back to Bach and his cantatas.

The structure of baroque music makes sense to me. Perhaps it is its sense of order and logic. Music does have its roots in mathematics and the human mind does like the order of mathematics. Bach cantatas generally follow a set pattern: chorus, recitative, aria, recitative or adios, aria and a final chorale. Within this pattern there is plenty of room for complexity. There are cantatas for solo voices, for larger vocal ensembles, sacred and secular, long and short cantatas. They are catalogued by what are called BWV or Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis numbers. The cantatas are the first of these numbers. In round numbers the first two hundred are sacred cantatas, BWV 1 to 200, 201 to 216, secular and 217 to 224 doubtful of their authorship. Around 209 survive. (There may be others such as one that was discovered in 2005 and numbered BWV 1127.) I will get into more detail about all of this as the project continues. I own 376 individual cantatas, which includes many repeats, in my collection on vinyl and CD. These are what I am going to listen to in their entirety during this project while trying to compare them to paintings that I have actually seen. Mind you, I might run out of time, life, before I complete the project.

The question arises to the order of listening to the cantatas. Logic says start with BWV 1 and that is what I think I will do. However, it is not that simple as Bach catalogue system is not, like Mozart’s K or Köchel numbers, chronological. Most of the cantatas were meant to be played in order of the Lutheran liturgical calendar following the Lutheran liturgy. Anyway, I need a method to my madness and BWV 1 seems a good as place as any to start. So, it is back to the turntable and CD player to listen to the three versions I have of Wie Schön leuchtet der Morgenstern or How brightly gleams the morning star.
The next post will deal with that and we are off to the races or is it a race with time?

© Virgil Hammock, Sackville NB, Canada, 14 September 2018.

h1

Déja Vu All Over Again

April 18, 2018

These are times of political upheaval. I keep thinking about the world in the 1930s and comparing to what is happening now. Then there was the rise of fascism that ultimately resulted in the horrors of World War II. Then fascism was rooted in Europe and seemed far away to many people in North America. We were still, at least in the early 1930s, in the Depression. Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were just places on a map. Today the signs of a new form of fascism are much closer to home with the events unfolding in the United States following the election of Donald Trump. There are, of course, many similar signs of emerging fascism in Europe and other parts of the world.

Donald Trump is a cartoon fascist, a buffoon at best, but still deadly dangerous because of those who enable him. They are the ones who have much to gain through his presidency while willy-nilly destroying democracy in the process. The German industrial military complex had as much to gain with the rise of Hitler as the American complex does with Trump. I do not mean, in either case, the military itself. They are the one who just use the tools the complex produces. They are the cannon fodder. You would be hard pressed to find the ‘captains’ of the industrial military complex anywhere near actual combat during a war. This sorry situation just repeats itself over and over again.

What is the responsibility of those of us in the arts today with democracy being attacked on so many fronts? Last year around this time I gave a talk in Fredericton, New Brunswick at the Gallery on Queen titled Art in Troubled Times [link to video]. The issue to me at the time was whether the mission of art was to confront the political disorder of our time directly or, perhaps, provide an escape through beauty of the present chaos. I hedged my bets at the time by saying both options were possible, but at that time I was closer to choosing beauty. The events of the past year have made me rethink my position.

I am still of the option that it is very difficult, if not impossible, for the arts to directly change the course of history, but rather it is their duty to reflect history. Many people I know, both artists and non-artists, are choosing to ignore current political events because they believe that there is nothing they can do that would change things. Keeping up would just fill them up with angst, they claim. They definitely do have a point, but the people I know who are doing this are Canadian, and as an American-Canadian of certain age — old — cannot follow their example. I was born in 1938 and spent most of the first twenty-nine years of my life living in the United States. (I moved to Canada in 1967.) I can vaguely remember WWII, Korea more so (I was in the US Army in Korea in 1957 and 58.), and I lived in England from 1952 to 54. I knew that fascism was a bad thing that should not be repeated. I never thought, despite many ups and downs, that my native land would be reduced to its current situation. A Trump-like president would have never occurred to me. Yes, I do remember Nixon and other dim-bulbed presidents. That is why I moved to Canada.

I was very active in left wing politics during my time at university from 1959 until 1967. The war in Vietnam was the finishing touch that drove me over edge. Interestingly enough my art, painting, in 1967 was a version of hard-edged formalism. As an undergraduate I did figurative painting that at times was political based. The change to formalism is another story, but it is central to what I am thinking about now. People do not appreciate being preached at no matter how well intentioned the preacher. Political art often comes off as being holier than thou and mostly something people would rather avoid. This does not mean that art should not address serious political issues only if it does; it needs to find a way of finding an audience. It also needs to find an audience outside of the self assuring bubble that many of us in the arts live in. Not as easy task. Humour appears to be one way.

Political cartoonists, who are certainly artists, have a way of reaching a large audience and Donald Trump has provided them with a treasure trove. Canadian cartoonist Michael de Adder is a prime example who is able to throw stuff and make it stick and there are many others around the world who have found targets in rise of global fascism. Present day political humour in painting seems more difficult to find. I am sure there many examples that I am unaware of. It is just that painting generally takes itself very seriously. Pop art, in its day, although popular, had a difficult time being taken critically in many quarters, but that is a subject for another essay. There were artists in the 1920s and 1930s, generally Germans like Otto Dix, George Grosz, and Max Beckmann who used humour with deadly effect. American artist Peter Blume’s 1934 The Eternal City with its Mussolini jack in the box or, on the American home front, Grant Wood’s American Gothic (1930) and Daughters of Revolution (1932) also come to mind. However, Robert Motherwell’s later (1965 – 1967) Elegy to the Spanish Revolution series falls flat at least to me, but they are pretty paintings and I do like classic American Abstract Expressionism.

There is certainly a lot more to be said on the responsibility of the arts in these dangerous times, but I have reached the limit for this post, around 1000 words, and will continue in further postings. I think that it is time for a drink.

© Virgil Hammock, Sackville NB, Canada, 18 April 2018.

h1

A Democracy of Mediocrity

April 9, 2018

I have been writing about art professionally for fifty years and for forty-five years for Vie des Arts. The profession has changed over this time and I am not sure for the better. Technology, mostly the internet, has made everyone a critic. Certainly score one for democracy, but it has made my job more difficult and made the substantiality of art magazines, like Vie des Arts, equally difficult. If you are reading this essay from a copy of the magazine that you bought or subscripted to, then, perhaps, I am preaching to the choir.

The big problem is, of course, that everyone with access to a computer, iPad, or even a smart phone, and the internet can publish what they think is art criticism without the filter of editing. The fact that much of art criticism that is published online is rubbish is beside point that everybody thinks that they are entitled to an opinion, and indeed they are, and, in many peoples mind, all opinions are equal. We are left with a democracy of mediocrity. What needs to be emphasized is that what matters in art criticism is art. That fact is increasingly lost in the fog of ersatz political science that passes for much art criticism these days and I am using the term science rather loosely.

Too often I am engulfed in self-righteous articles that demand art works be removed from exhibitions or museums, and sometimes destroyed, because of the real or imagined actions of an artist and urged to boycott them entirely. Unfortunately rants of this kind are not limited to online, but appear in print as well. I would like to think that this problem was solved by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century who insisted that art exist well beyond the artist who created it. His argument is well put by James Joyce in the last third of his 1914 book A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Yes, Chuck Close may well be a dirty old man firmly encased for years in his wheelchair who may have once said something smutty many years ago to someone about their breasts, but his paintings are still pretty good or, at least, I like them—they stand on their own remote from their maker. Using the standards of today’s new art puritans our art galleries and museums’s walls would be stripped bare of almost everything worth looking at. I could supply a very long list of dead white guys, but I’ll give you just a few: Caravaggio, Cellini, Courbet, Dali, Degas, Delacroix, and Duchamp. Rotters all and I am only to D. The secret, of course, you have the know, or think you know, the life style of the artist in order to disapprove both of it and his art. Otherwise, you run the danger of enjoying the art based solely on what you see.

Lets meditate on enjoying what you see. I maintain that there are rules that make a painting a work of art regardless of it being realistic or abstract or its subject matter or even the intention of the artist. Now these are rules that I am not making up and, yes, artists have broken rules and made good art, but exceptions prove the rules and the artists who break them know the rules well. Some rules are absolute: some colours advance, yellow, and some, purple, recede; the way we ‘read’ a picture—left to right and the diagonals from bottom left to top right. Composition is composition and has a lot to do visual perception. Using these rules to make a good picture is the job of the artist. Artists lets the pictures go from their imagination, we receive the image and when the result is good it is art.

My judgement whether a painting is a work of art is usually made within a fraction of a second and then I take it from there. That is when I look at everything else and the everything else is what is important. Of course, subject and the intent of the artist are important. An artist I admire, Stephen Scott, told me recently that painting is all about intent. I am, on the other hand, just happy that he lays the paint down well. If I don’t think that a painting is art, I ignore it regardless of the artist’s intention. He or she can be heartfelt about their subject, war is bad, racism is bad or any number of bad things. It’s just what they are doing is not art and I am an art critic and I would rather write about art. If that makes me a formalist so be it.

A last point. We live in an age of what is called curatorial activism and I do curate as well. Message to curators, young and old, it is about the art and not you. I do read quite a bit breathless prose on line about curation. It is the fault of French post modern and structuralist literary thinkers who wanted to reduce literature to text that led to art critics and curators thinking that they could reduce art works to objects to prove their half-baked ideas. The result was un-viewable exhibitions and art texts that were equally un-readable.

Perhaps the problem of art criticism in this day and age is that there is just too much art. We think that we can absorb art through reproduction on the web and understand it. The simple truth is that we cannot. We need to stand in front of an art work and let it sink in. The old chestnut that a picture is worth ten thousands words is true and let me, a cranky old art critic, leave you, gentle reader, with the cliché that a thing of beauty IS a joy forever.

©Virgil Hammock, Sackville, New Brunswick, Canada, 3 March 2018.
This article was originally published in Vie des Arts number 250, Spring 2018, pg. 83.

h1

When Bad People Make Good Things

April 2, 2018

The usual saying is: “When good people do bad things”, but I am reversing it and changing it instead of do to make and read: “When bad people make good things.” I am concerned with with the current fixation of people to confuse the moral actions of artists with their art works. I am most concerned here with the visual arts, as that is my field of expertise, but the confusion extents across other cultural fields. As an example, a person who chooses not to like the films of Woody Allen (even if they had before) because of past actuations of child molestation. I will not go into whether or not this has been proven in court as that has little to with the damnation he has concurred. The point is that his films have not changed. Peoples opinion about his films have changed because of their negative moral judgements about his character. This begs the question if people who had no knowledge about the actuations surrounding Allen and saw his films and liked them would their judgement be wrong? Hello Lolita.

A majority of people who visit public art galleries and museums have little, or no, knowledge of art history particularly the personal lives of the artists who produced the art that they are looking at. There is nothing wrong with that. Why should they? They normally make their judgements based on their emotions. Which is fine and follows along the lines: “I don’t know much about art, but I know what I like.” Again, perfectly acceptable and often the major galleries and museums have many items that are generally likeable. Many viewers do vaguely know the names of artists who are considered ‘good’ like Rembrandt or Picasso plus other household names. I have often watched people first look at the label beside a painting to check the name of the artist to make sure that the painting was worth looking at. If it passed their name test, they would look at the painting with admiration while ignoring other equally good works by lesser known artists in the same gallery space. I am fine with this. Who am I to question their choices?

Should they know the back stories of the famous artists that they are supposed to admire? Caravaggio? Wasn’t he a murderer and a homosexual at a time when being a homosexual was illegal? Yes, on both counts. Speaking of homosexuals, Leonardo faced sodomy charges, but was saved by the pope. Now, are not Caravaggio and Leonardo important to the history of art and are not their works really famous? I could go on and on with serious character faults in famous artists from the 15th until the 19th centuries, but the one thing that you can count on is that their art has remained unchanged. Disregarding periodic changes in critical taste, good paintings remain good paintings even if their makers have been damned to the ninth level of Hell where they are keeping company with Virgil.

Amor Vincit Omnia, 1601–1602, Gemäldegalerie, Berlin. Caravaggio shows Cupid prevailing over all human endeavors: war, music, science, government. (Wikipedia)

Looking at more modern and contemporary art history, there are certainly artists who don’t pass the litmus test of current social acceptability. The beloved Gustav Klimt (and beloved is the right term) fathered at least fourteen children all of them out of wedlock. Not far behind was Lucian Freud with twelve children, ten out of wedlock. You could say that both of them had a thing with the ladies. Again, is their art important? You bet. Perhaps, it’s time to take all of those Klimt posters down. But, he was a pretty fair landscape painter as well.

This brings me to the strange case of the still living Chuck Close. Alas, poor Chuck has been accused of making smutty remarks, many years ago, about a woman’s breasts. This charge, via mostly social media, was enough for him to lose a major retrospective and be placed among the new class of non-persons. Again, the actuations have yet to be proven. I have known an artist or two, over my sixty years in the art world, who have used off colour language from time to time. Come to think of it, it’s hard to think of an artists who hasn’t. Even I, a pillar of propriety, have been called out by my friends (yes I have some) for my foul mouth. As far as remembering an off-colour comment I made to a woman about her attractiveness, twenty or more years ago, I claim the forgetfulness of old age. Chuck Close and I are about the same age, he is twenty-three months younger to the day.

My point is that Close and the other artists that I have mentioned are all reasonable good artists whose works stand on their own, remote from their personal lives. I could go all philosophical here and will in another post why this is true. I stand by the title article in this blog on art and beauty. Remember that my buddies Kant and Hegel cannot be wrong all the time. Beauty is important, my friends.

© Virgil Hammock, Sackville NB, Canada, 2 April 2018.