Color and Composition

Not too long ago, I was having a short conversation about color and was making a point about color being different from composition.  The woman I was talking with asked "isn't color also composition?"  Darn good question.

Yes and no.

Matisse is a good one to turn to on this topic.  He was at least somewhat known as one who had some painting that focused on color and others where he focused on composition.  Perhaps turn also to Papa Cezanne.  It's much easier to see his focus on composition as there's isn't the same riot of color going on as there is with Matisse.

It's easier to approach this topic from the vantage point of black & white photography.  This strips the picture plane down to the organization of various shapes in shades of grey.  Color is monochromatic in a b & w image.  Here we can then focus on how various shapes are arranged in that two-dimensional plane.

Can't color also be a way to organize shapes in a picture plane?  It sure can.  We're back to Matisse for one.  Here's the thing though, if you're able to see past the color to that actual organization of shapes in the picture plane, you might find that the basic structure of the painting is flawed.  Since we're so reactive to color, its easier to disguise lousy composition when using color than when painting monochromatically.

It's true that knowing some elements of Color Theory can help you play with composition using color.  For example, warm colors generally come forward and cool colors generally recede.  Large shapes generally come forward and small shapes generally recede.  Knowing this, you can put a large cool shape in front of a smaller warm shape (not overlapping) and play with the rules to achieve more tension in your painting.  This is but one example of using the rules and 'breaking' them in the aim of more effectively reaching your goal.

Society Sucks, Product and Process, and the Well-Fed Artist

The term postmodernism is used in a confusing variety of ways. For some it means anti-modern; for others it means the revision of modernist premises.  It avoids, as much as possible, the modernist desire to classify. Postmodernism partakes of uncertainty, insecurity, doubt, and accepts ambiguity.


The seemingly anti-modern stance involves a basic rejection of the tenets of Modernism - a rejection of reason, the notion of truth, the belief that it’s possible to create a better, if not perfect, society. This view has been termed Deconstructive Postmodernism.  An alternative understanding, which seeks to revise the premises of Modernism, has been termed Constructive Postmodernism.  


Maybe the entire film by the Coen Brothers, The Big Labowsky, reflected these competing themes.  There's The Dude and his life.  Then, there's Juliane Moore's character Maude.  And, who can forget Bunny, especially the scene where she asks The Dude to blow on her freshly painted toenails to help dry them, and he turns towards the pool then asks her "won't he mind?" (turning his head towards the pool to bring the passed out guy into view) with Bunny responding "Uli doesn't care about anything.  He's a nihilist."


The Surrealists (the Dali variety) had the modernist belief that their art could influence human destiny.  Later, after the war and in the period when humankind could be obliterated, surrealism of a different sort emerged (the Tapias variety).  Now, we have such practitioners as Keifer.  Maybe you wouldn't put him in the surrealist camp, but I find his work to be consistent with that view of human-kind.


In June 1970, the French writer Jean Clay observed: "It is clear that we are witnessing the death throes of the cultural system maintained by the bourgeoisie in its galleries and its museums."  Well, that certainly seems debatable.  I do agree that the church, aristocracy, and state were being replaced by a rising group who came along with the rise of a professional middle-class.  Also, we have seen a growth in Outsider Art, and street art of all sorts.  Yet, it's hard for me to see that Clay's observation as more fantasy than reality.  Though, Conceptual art helped to turn our attention towards "making" and the manipulation of materials where process was the product, there's the artist Dove Bradshaw who produces 'things' that are themselves about process and that change and degrade with time.


We can continue this line to include all of performance art including the “Happenings” of the post-WWII era, the Arte Povera and Arte Brut movements, Abstract Expressionism, and so forth.  Yet, even here, a society that values the object as our does exerts a tremendously powerful force in the art world.  That along with artist's desire to both make good work and live in heated spaces and have good food!

Modernism, Hope and Art for Art's Sake

Recently, I was in a discussion with several people about Modernism that motivated me to do some research on that term and Post-Modernism.  Upon reflection, I see Modernism covering a period of about the 19th century to the present day, with some influence from Post-Modernism as a separate thread.  In what follows, I’ve edited several references, deleting material that didn’t seem pertinent to our discussion.  I also added some of my own commentary. 


One aspect of Modernism that makes a great deal of sense to me is how it’s a reflection of the culture of the day.  I like a piece from Wiki that “The term (Modernism) is usually associated with art in which the traditions of the past have been thrown aside in a spirit of experimentation.  Modern artists experimented with new ways of seeing and with fresh ideas about the nature of materials and functions of art.  A tendency toward abstraction is characteristic of much modern art. More recent artistic production is often called Contemporary art or Postmodern art.”


One writer speaks of it broad cultural terms noting that “social, economic, and cultural life in the widest sense [was] revolutionized by modernity ... [this means] that modernist art is scarcely thinkable outside the context of the modernized society of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Cahoone 1996, p. 13.


Wiki, continues noting that Modernism “in its broadest definition, is modern thought, character, or practice.  More specifically, the term describes both a set of cultural tendencies and an array of associated cultural movements, originally arising from wide-scale and far-reaching changes to Western society in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The term encompasses the activities and output of those who felt the "traditional" forms of art, architecture, literature, religious faith, social organization and daily life were becoming outdated in the new economic, social and political conditions of an emerging fully industrialized world.”  What I like about this focus on broad life is it puts art in a cultural context and recognizes that art resides in a cultural context.  This doesn’t mean that art follows culture, it’s more inter-active than that – sometimes art forecasts cultural developments.  One aspect of WIki’s treatment of this term that strikes me as particularly pertinent is the role of Modernism in rejecting the “lingering certainty of Enlightenment thinking, and also that of the existence of a compassionate, all-powerful Creator.”  


I personally appreciate this aspect of Modernism – that Modern Art has an interest in questioning existence and the certainty of existence.  It also raises the question of whether there ever can be an objective reality.  My personal opinion is that such a thing simply doesn’t exist.   Wiki also touches on another salient aspect of Modernism – “…experiments with form, and work that draws attention to the processes and materials used (and to the further tendency of abstraction).”  Arte Povera and Arte Brute are two related genres genre where process and materials are at the heart of visual expression.


In this reference, the writer makes an interesting distinction between historians in general and art historians, noting that historians (not art historians) say “the modern period actually begins with the Renaissance.”  This is certainly my perspective – that the modern era began, in the West at least, at the time when science and technology, and a secular humanism, began to exert a strong influence over life.  (As an aside, if you ever have the opportunity, travel to Florence and see for yourself the birth of the Renaissance in the form of the dome to the Duomo and the greatest storehouse of Renaissance Art in Florence generally and The Uffizi Gallery in particular.)
   
Arguments today about faith versus reason (a false dichotomy in my view), debates about evolution, “intelligent design,” religious beliefs and social organization, first arose as issues with the Renaissance.  This same reference puts this issue thus,  “The Enlightenment was an intellectual movement for which the most immediate stimulus was the so-called Scientific Revolution of the 17th and early 18th centuries when men like Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, through the application of reason to the study of Nature (i.e. our world and the heavens) had made spectacular scientific discoveries in which were revealed various scientific truths.”


Generally speaking, Progressive Modernism tended to concern itself with political and social issues.  It concerned itself with the plight of the poor, that an increasingly complacent middle class ignored.  Progressives repeatedly drew attention to the political and social ills of contemporary society, Fundamentally, the intention was to educate the public, to keep alive in the face of conservative forces the Enlightenment ideals of freedom and equality through which the world would be made a better place.   The position taken by Progressive Modernism came to be referred to as the avant-garde (a military term meaning "advance-guard"). In contrast to conservative modernists who looked to the past and tradition, the avant-garde artist consciously rejected tradition. The avant-garde artist saw him- or herself as standing at the head of a new tradition stretching, hopefully, into the future. The Progressive Modernist looked to the future while the conservative modernist looked to the past.  


This is particularly pertinent to visual art, such as it is, in Wallowa County today.  While there’s a great deal of visual art in the county (2-D and 3-D) it’s of a very narrow focus and little if any of it would even remotely be considered part of the avant-garde. I find helpful to take a step back and look at the broader cultural and political forces at work that shape visual expression.  This helps me understand the limited scope visual expression takes in the County.  It’s also worthwhile to take stock of what cultural values it supports if not outright then by de-facto means. 


Historically, the avant-garde is liberal in its support of freedom of expression and demands of equality. Since the 18th century, the modernist belief in the freedom of expression has manifested itself in art through claims to freedom of choice in subject matter and to freedom of choice in style ( of subject matter, brushstroke and color, materials, and so forth).  


As the 19th century progressed, the exercise of artistic freedom became fundamental to Progressive Modernism. Artists began to seek freedom not just from the rules of academic art, but from the demands of the public. Soon it was claimed that art should be produced not for the public's sake, but for art's sake.  This is a crucial step and one that may people have difficulty accepting and undertstanding to this day.  Yet, this is an immense step, no less so than that represented by cubism, the use of color by Matisse, or advances in science, including Relativity Theory.


Art for Art's Sake is basically a call to release art from having to defend it's existence by appealing to meaning and purpose for it's viewer. While I support the notion of “Art for Art’s Sake,” its not an alternative to being concerned with social, cultural, or moral issues.  Rather, art doesn’t need to justify its existence.   In his 1891 essay "The Soul of Man Under Socialism", Oscar Wilde wrote:  “A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament.  Its beauty comes from the fact that the author is what he is. It has nothing to do with the fact that other people want what they want.  Indeed, the moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want, and tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist, and becomes a dull or an amusing craftsman, an honest or dishonest tradesman. He has no further claim to be considered as an artist.”


In the late 19th century, art was to be discussed in terms of style -- color, line, shape, space, composition -- conveniently ignoring or playing down whatever social, political, or progressive statements the artist had hoped to make in his or her work.  This has a role to be sure.  However, it needs to be leavened by a focus on content.  What is the emotion of the piece?  What is the story of the piece?  Surely, visual artists as diverse as Goya, Picasso, Schnabel, to name but a few, produced art that arose form a cultural context and was their respective commentary on that cultural context.