"You should study art history", says my friend as we sit on the sofa.
He didn't mean to be insulting. I don't recall how the subject came up, whether we discussed 'ancient' art before or afterwards. I replied "But there's so much of it!" Besides, he was oblivious to my inability to study anything. "From the 15th century onward?" I continued, knowing full well that it stretched back further, which he reminded me by citing cave art. Yes, I know about that.
The conversation stalled on my behalf as I wondered what, exactly, qualified as 'art'. I ventured to suggest that much of what is called art with reference to cave and what-not is art of another kind, not the sort I was thinking about. But those waters are far too deep to explore when you're supposed to be cooking the meal for guests, as I was.
His basic idea was that I gain some historical knowledge. He's big on the history, knowing more than me for sure. The trouble is, with people who seem to know more, how can you be sure they're telling the truth? Some people, sensing your ignorance, can talk nonsense and you wouldn't know any better. I could tell someone that Hard Bop came before Be-Bop, should I wish to impress a Jazz ignoramus. "Louis Armstrong dropped his trumpet during a march in 1921 but that altered his sound to the good and a legend was born!" "Really?" "No."
We showed our friend a monograph on Dieter Roth (the second within three months!). He'd not seen the work before. I got the sense he wasn't familiar with most of Roth. Fair enough. The next day I pondered the fact that many know their art 'history', but not the wealth of brilliance under their historical 'noses', ie, the 20th century. The obvious names aside. The same day I started reading Seeing Is Forgetting the Name of the Thing One Sees by Lawrence Weschler. It consists of interviews with Robert Irwin. Anyway, on page 39 Irwin talks about his reaction to the classical canon whilst visiting museums in Europe. "I mean, it got to the point where if I ever saw another fucking brown painting ...I was so fucking tired of brown paintings. I mean, they all looked exactly the same! After a while my whole relationship to the history of art got cleared out to a matter of trusting my own eye."
It chimed with my recent thoughts on art history. I gravitate towards the 20th century. Like Irwin, I can "enter a room and go like that, zap, and pick out the one or two paintings that were at all interesting in terms of technique." It's not necessarily technique that attracts me, though. It's usually something else, something indefinable. I could hit a gallery in ten minutes, but I have to be patient because those with me usually can't.
Which is not to dismiss history. Like Irwin, though, my head's pretty clear regarding what I can relate to/enjoy/be intrigued by etc. There's so much to treasure across the centuries, but for me, to study it would be a distraction. Since studying isn't my forte, it takes all my effort to focus on and rummage around in the last century.
Before I go, a quick word about these pieces. They're called Under Heavy Manners because Prince Far I's album was playing through most of the process. It seemed to fit. The paint is acrylic. The technique is chance and a little judgement. Hope you enjoy them. TTFN.
No comments:
Post a Comment