I find there to be no greater example of hyperbole than when aesthetes write about emotion and the arts. The visual arts, it is said, express emotion or should it be that they sometimes depict humans expressing emotion? There is a significant difference between the former and latter statement.
Inas Alkholy, in an essay published on the net, describes the types of things she believes emotions to be.
“Emotion is a vital force in all art forms. We experience positive and negative
emotions like happiness, love, satisfaction, hate, sorry, sadness, reverence, depression, vulnerability, disgust, fear, anxiety, surprise, threat, etc. They are distinguished by different kinds of evaluations; some emotional responses
involve a mixture of pleasure and displeasure, fear and joy.[i]
While I would take issue with some of the examples she lists (depression for example is a shutdown of emotion and anxiety is a neurochemical response) she has provided a sample large enough to generate a discussion. If you haven’t already done so, I would request that you read my earlier blog titled Emotions vs. Feelings: Busting an Urban Myth.
For Alkholy it seems that the be all and end all of art is the expressing of emotion which then becomes the meaning a work is said to have. She writes:
Art conveys meanings, reflects moods, motivates both feelings and actions, and engages the viewer into a vivid dialogue the art work. Artists through the ages have been expressing deep feelings and sufferings. The expressiveness of figurative art moves the viewer, not only to admire the artist but to feel the expressed emotions themselves. (2)
Frankly, this is a load of hooey. Is there not a difference between depicting emotion and expressing emotion? Am I being too difficult? Well here are some thoughts from another observer:
“Now perhaps even more importantly, what it draws attention to is that curiously, when we say that a work is expressive, say it's expressive of melancholy, above all if it's an expression of, say sadness or something, or gloom, it's not really that it makes us feel gloomy, it's a more complex, more interesting phenomenon. After all, if a work made you feel gloomy and really depressed or something, you wouldn't actually want to perhaps listen to it very much. Or if a painting was like that, if it expressed a certain kind of pathos or suffering, sorrow, you wouldn't want to get that into your life; it's not that you kind of long for more of that, rather it's something a bit different.”
John Armstrong, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Melbourne, speaking on The Philosopher’s Zone Saturday 28 April 2007 1:35PM
When asked why their work presented itself as it did, my Directing students would respond with something like: “I want the audience to feel what the character is feeling.” Or “I want to make them angry”, “At this moment I want them to cry.” Consequently I had to remind them that they couldn’t second guess an audience because they didn’t know what baggage the audience was bringing into the theatre with them. Some audiences laugh when it is most inappropriate, others get angry and stomp out when they take offense at something on stage, still others are stoic when they expected to be laughing. “Don’t try to manipulate your audience.” I would tell them. “You do your thing and let the audience do theirs. Directors direct for themselves and hope the audience will see what they see.” I believe this is true for all artists. But let us cut to the chase and see what it is Alkholy would describe as the expressing of emotion in an art work.
This is an alabaster Assyrian wall relief from Nineveh referred to as the Dying Lioness. Alkholy describes it: “It is a tragic scene full of energy and considered one of the earliest examples that represent emotional expression of pain.” No doubt for twenty-first century viewers, who are aware of the need to protect our animal wild life, this is a disturbing image but pain is not an emotion. It is a sensation and we can only correctly describe this relief as depicting a lion undergoing the sensation of pain. No emotion is involved in the relief even if we anthropomorphize the lion. I don’t think the artist anthropomorphized the lion but it is not unusual that some artist try to treat animals as if they were human. Consider the painting below by Augustus Schenck.
This example is so obvious it is silly. Here we have a sheep supposedly grieving over and protecting its dead lamb while a murder of crows, in the manner of Hitchcock’s The Birds, circle, waiting to pick over the remains. It is clearly a fantasy for any sheep rancher knows that sheep are the dumbest of animals (able to be herded by a rabbit (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9oPdqIqIns&feature=fvsr) and care little for their offspring once it has died. Again, the artist is attempting to depict emotion, not express it. No doubt some will view the image and exclaim: “Oh the poor mother.” projecting onto the sheep a human persona but there is no accounting for taste.
The idea that art should express emotion is an 18th century idea that has had its day. Nevertheless there are still many around who believe that not only does art express emotion it is required to do it and they will find emotion in all works if only to spite the doubters.
This work is Picasso’s Weeping Woman but it is not at all clear what emotion it is supposed to depict. People weep for many different reasons (Peeling onions for instance). But then, again, some hold it is the viewer that describes the emotion and what the viewer says goes. If you should be fortunate enough to view the actual painting you would be amazed at how bright and crisp the colors were. It is not a large work but it is one of Picasso’s best. The bright, crisp colors remind you that here is an artist who attends to technique and design. It is difficult to become involved with the work on an emotional level because we are challenged to think of it in terms of the choices Picasso has made. We marvel at his ability to give us a contorted image that is bright and cheery. People who see this as merely a sad or sorrowful work miss the artist’s thought process that is the signature of his better works. Perhaps this idea will be easier to understand if we compare this work to the work of another famous artist.
Here is another colorful weeping woman by Roy Lichenstein. What was it Alkholy said? Oh yes, “The expressiveness of figurative art moves the viewer, not only to admire the artist but to feel the expressed emotions themselves.” Admittedly, some may not wish to call Lichtenstein’s work art but they would be an eccentric minority. Alkholy’s statement was all inclusive. I would be amazed to discover an arts patron who on viewing this work felt ‘the expressed emotions themselves’ but I suppose it would not be impossible that someone should identify with the situation this painting presents. No doubt some works fill us with delight which can be described as an emotional reward. Such a work for me was this small painting by Vermeer.
A photograph does not do the work justice. It literally sparkles, drawing viewer into the work, forcing them to see what the artist saw. We almost paint the work again following the line of color which exposes the artist’s technique. Am I being too emotional here?
Launt Thompson
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?field-keywords=Launt+Thompson&url=search-alias%3Daps&x=16&y=9
No comments:
Post a Comment