The late Renaissance ended with disputes within art criticism. The mystical mood of the Gothic and Renaissance prompted a turn toward rational explanation of arts purposes. Less focus was given to Renaissance ideals of beauty, balance and geometry as a mantle on which to structure artistic design. In the 17th century more stress in art production was placed on secular values, lessons to the taken from a work of art.
With a focus on the social aspects of the arts Plato's cautionary concern that too much freedom in art could be culturally destructive was echoed in the theories of the time. "Reason above imagination" seems to have been the mantra of the era and many pages of scholarly theorizing took place on what art should do for society. The Dutch for instance produced a history of Dutch painting with moral reflections on the key artists in Dutch history.
As one looks at Rembrandt and Vermeer (outstanding examples of 17th century Dutch art) one sees a obvious focus on social themes in their paintings. Rembrandt often quoted the Bible to make moral points in his lush, light-saturated canvases aimed at a discerning ethically aware society. Even his late self-portraits seem to probe into his conscience as if weighing his own moral status.
In general the shift from the Renaissance into the 17th century was away from the vested authority of the church and toward the private conscience of the individual. Art was seen a product of a rational society where individual rights were gaining value. A protestant worldview stressed reason and logic in biblical studies as well as in the arts. The Reformation spirit had much to do with this shift, along with advances in scientific empirical study. It was also an age where great technical breakthroughs were made in painting chemistry with detailed recipes published on: glazing, solvents, varnishes, pigments etc. The most comprehensive of these technical writings were produced by the Dutch masters.
Bill
33 comments:
Taking away from this I found this sentence to be very intriguing.. "Plato's cautionary concern that too much freedom in art could be culturally destructive" .. I find that Plato's concern for this was definitely valid because art can sometimes be very offensive. It can often sway people towards a certain feeling whether it be valid or not. Art is a tool in some sense that gives artists a power to give their point of view on the world around us.
Whether our point of view be about the world around us or about our current problems. Ideas can be dangerous because we can hurt those around us granted that it is offensive to ones culture or religion.
It is not surprising to see the shift of Renaissance art into the 17th century. There were many renaissance scholars and thinkers who sought out the employ realism and human emotion in art. Unlike many of the unindividualized style of Byzantine iconography, artist such as Masaccio gave his subjects identities with natural lighting and a sense of atmosphere. Philosophy and natural thought along with the distribution of books such as the bible expanded arts in society.
-Hannah Ryu
It is not surprising to see the shift of Renaissance art into the 17th century. There were many renaissance scholars and thinkers who sought out the employ realism and human emotion in art. Unlike many of the unindividualized style of Byzantine iconography, artist such as Masaccio gave his subjects identities with natural lighting and a sense of atmosphere. Philosophy and natural thought along with the distribution of books such as the bible expanded arts in society.
-Hannah Ryu
I also found Plato's warning about too much freedom in art very interesting. This makes sense during the 17th century when people started to realize their own will power and value as individuals. I think art could only be culturally destructive in a way that could liberate society. An artist of that time would have to be careful to present work that not only encouraged this freedom but conveyed a message of personal accountability (morality).
I don't believe that ideas are harmful. The danger comes from the actions of people who are not very ethically aware.
I believe one can clearly see the technological advances in paintings the Dutch masters discovered. For one, there is a crispness and clarity seen in painting that, in my opinion, was much less prevalent before this era. The point about the emphasis on reason above imagination is also apparent in the photo realistic quality, there is little left to interpretation, the work is very literal and straight forward.
I agree with Travis that the statement "Plato's cautionary concern that too much freedom in art could be culturally destructive" was one of the more striking parts to the blog. I think the more current conservative artist would agree to think about how there painting would impact society and its cultures. This might limit the artist to what they might want to express in a painting, more often than not I get the feeling conservative art might be done for the viewer and not done for the artist release of self, witch only hurts the artist. Now these conservative pieces might be more "sellable" but for my own taste, i get bored of art that lacks emotionally charged energy. The beauty of art is that someone can see a piece I find boring as a master piece, and if it speaks to them, then thats all that really matter. As for myself, I try not to hold back , I would rather one of my pieces connect to one person and disgusts everyone else, than create a piece that lies to myself and appeals to everyone else but myself.
While an artist who is completely free of a moral guideline in his art could make some offensive artwork, he was likely to be carted away to be executed instead of anyone taking him seriously. A renegade with an unpopular opinion was unlikely to hold any sway in public opinion, I should think.
fikriye ozmeral gibson
arts , society , philosophers, and education in my opinion should be free of religion. i find religion to be a completely personal obstacle that should not even be discussed with others. we the people of society should not be separated, grouped according to our beliefs or a society should not stand up to identify itself and its people with the "x" religion.
to me this secular era in arts and looking or reason, humanism and painting about social issues , painting commoners is a brilliant turning point in art and aesthetics history, and if one wants to see it, it is even a religious experience. what has stated in this spesicic era has led us to paintings like goya's third of may , which depicts the cruelties of war , its a theme i am working it out on my senior port .
i dont agree with plato. agreeing with plato on "creating the perfect society by shaping the perfect society ' seems narcissistic and immoral to me . world society as a whole and individual communities are not supposed to be aiming for perfection . we should not aim for perfection. i prefer flaws , in my own art and in my aesthetic views.
Dear aesthetic thinkers,
The good thing about a public discussion like the one we are having on this blog is that individual get to state their beliefs in a respectful way. Of course we are free to have different opinions that was one of the great gains of the 17th century as some of you have noted in your comments.
Personal belief and the right to agree or disagree is surely a great boon to society. To be forced to believe anything never results in belief instead it prompts rebellion. This is true in art and in all areas of human life.
The 17th century which set the stage for artists such as Goya--was a time when rational and respectful discourse was first seen as a value in society. This included the religious rights as well.
I found this part of the reading interesting" In general the shift from the renaissance into the 17th century was away from the vested authority of the church and towards the private conscience of the individual."
Earlier in the reading it says Rembrant often quoted the bible to get moral points across, so obviously the church still had great influence on the artist. I also found, like many of the other classmates, Pluto's warning about too much freedom in art interesting. These days I see the only problem with to much freedom in art to be this, artist using great concepts as a poor excuse not to study the craft of art. A great artist should understand knowledge is power and with great technique comes the freedom to express yourself in more ways.
I found this part of the reading interesting" In general the shift from the renaissance into the 17th century was away from the vested authority of the church and towards the private conscience of the individual."
Earlier in the reading it says Rembrant often quoted the bible to get moral points across, so obviously the church still had great influence on the artist. I also found, like many of the other classmates, Pluto's warning about too much freedom in art interesting. These days I see the only problem with to much freedom in art to be this, artist using great concepts as a poor excuse not to study the craft of art. A great artist should understand knowledge is power and with great technique comes the freedom to express yourself in more ways.
Brett,
You commented that Rembrandt's use of the Bible meant the church still held power over him. Actually it was the freedom to read the Bible on ones own that put power in the hands of the people. They no longer had to depend on the clergy to tell them what the Bible said. The private person effectively had control now, a power of access that had preciously belonged to the church alone.
Bill
I found that Plato's concern about too much freedom in art is definitely valid, but I don't find it to be the major issue. I think it is important that artists were able to create art for themselves and follow their own values and beliefs. Like Fikriye, I don't believe religion should play a part in education, art, or philosophy. And I think that this transition enabled artists to explore themes outside of their own religious spirituality.
Like travis, I believe that artists have a "power to give their point of view on the world around us." I believe it is every artist's responsibility to understand and not abuse that power.
I too, find Plato's concern interesting, that too much freedom would be culturally harmful. There are obviously two sides to the argument, I have been thinking of both. Who's to say what is harmful to a culture or to society? I was struck by the sentence right below Plato's concern. I reads, "...many pages of scholarly theorizing took place on what art should do for society". Art shouldn't be grouped together in a society as a whole. Or representational of that society. I understand that we remember art from each period because of the themes, styles, etc...however I don't believe because popular art is focused in one direction it should give the society or a culture a bad reputation as a whole. Art shouldn't be arranged to benefit a society or culture. On the other hand, Plato's comment is something that we all should keep in mind as artists.
I agree with what Travis said about Plato's concern. I think it's even happened already and we've over looked it. For example the pro Nazi propaganda posters were a huge influence of the entire movement that ended up killing millions. We do have the power to persuade a persons point of view as artists.
"Reason before imagination" lets forget about religion for a second and just focus on what this statement implies. Technical advancements in paint compounds and varnishes are coming about, science and personal conscience are on every ones mind at the time. It is a rebellion of the mystic in the Renaissance, but is it really good for all art to put reason before imagination? I feel it is important for artists to have imagination before reason otherwise we would be no different than a scientist at that point. Art at this time, it seems to me, became less about self expression or narrative and more like a record of their world. Capturing a real moment is not bad, but just a different social duty. I feel it is healthy for artists of different eras to rebel against the previous era. Just like art of the sixties directly shunned art from the fifties. Not that either is bad or good it is just the way we work.
I can’t believe that Plato thought that too much freedom in art could destroy a culture. In reality, it is quite the opposite, art often reflects the values of a culture and tells more about a group of people than a history book ever could. It is interesting to read about the morals in Dutch paintings. The subject of social themes reminds me of my student film because my story is about facing fears.
I really enjoyed reading this article and seeing the natural change of mind that shifted the general themes of artworks. I wonder if the artists at that time could see that the changes going on around him was that that caused him to have a sense of responsibility to go after this new "aesthetic". Its very interesting to see the shifting mindsets of a population, like watching the sand on the beach that continuously moves around with each incoming wave. Plato's sentiments on aiming our attention towards the real repeatedly comes back into the cultural dialog. We see it come back into art and human consciousness again and again. We go through periods of excess and eventually come back down to earth in order to ground ourselves.
Plato's thoughts on too much freedom in art could destroy a culture is true in a sense that if an artist produced work that was harmful to the public in its subject. During this time I could believe that a piece of artwork delivering a message that was extremely rebellious towards the government could create conflict between opposing communities. I bet the church wasn't very happy with the freedom, but its interesting to see that Rembrandt stayed true to delivering morals through his work.
Freedom is an interesting thing to give and take away to an artist. Perhaps we wouldn't have so much visual garbage if we had a filter on the work that commercial corporations flood our lives with.
I try to practice placing a filter on the art that I take the time to pursue. Both the message and visually.
The only way I could see too much freedom in art as being a problem is when it's so overwhelming to have so many valid choices that the artist can't even begin, or if there isn't a corresponding freedom in art critiscism to point out where art is weak or wrong.
It's also a little amazing to see reason above imagination being held as a high value in such a religious society, the stereotype of a religious person requires them to be ignorant, judgmental an reactionary. It's important to realize that the purpose of Rembrandts paintings was moral teaching and commentary, not just his amazing painting technique.
i think plato foresaw many issues that are still problematic or controversial today, i personally think expansion in the art world brings with it strong potential for beautiful discoveries but thoughtful expansion done with intent usually has the best outcome
I think in a way Plato was right in saying that too much freedom in art could be culturally destructive, not because the art itself is destructive, but the ideas and reality it reflects. Art can be seen as a product that reflects the world of the artist. For example, the Dutch techniques that came about the 17th century reflected the scientific innovations of the time. The religious undertones in Rembrandt's paintings reflected religious values of the time. Art itself is not destructive, but it reveals the existence of destructive elements in the society in which it was made. Even the idea of varying degrees of freedom in creating any kind of art shows changes in the reality of the society.
The mantra of the time being "reason above imagination" struck me as sad, at first. But I see why it was a necessary part of the development of art at the time, which was so heavily dominated by religious ideals and etherial themes. The advancements in Dutch painting such as the works of Vermeer show that this emphasis on rational thought did not damage the production of works of beautiful and that the shift away from the church and emphasis on individual experience was a beneficial, progressive move.
I like this time period's idea of art as being socially conscious and the regarding of the individual as being a part of a functioning society.Although, i don't agree that art should be didactic or always have some moral lesson, i think it is important as artists to consider our role as a whole within society.
In general the shift from the Renaissance into the 17th century was away from the vested authority of the church and toward the private conscience of the individual. Art was seen a product of a rational society where individual rights were gaining value.
this shift in ideas from renaissance into the 17th century was well on its way. the general public were growing in intelligence and no longer relied on the church for every explanation. People were becoming individuals and rebelling. dutch artists and those from italy were constantly trying to change the cannon when it came to painting realism. though religion tied into the commission of work. it was very much more about the approach, technique, and materials in which these paintings were made. or at least thats how i feel.
"Reason above imagination" seems like a very creatively limiting motto. The philosophy of art criticism of his era its seems like a hindrance of advancement also. I like to advocate for imagination in the arts and though logic and reason has its grand moments, it is in imagination and innovation that society can grow. In this period of reflecting and detailing the rational in painting seems to be like beating a dead horse. The ideals are being forced into painting over and over and it is hard to elaborate on something that we already know is fact. There is no chance for education or broadening our perspective in the theories of the 17th century.
Art taking its toll towards secular ideas, away from religion, gave more attention to the individual artist and the themes they expressed. It was a new door opened, to a whole new kind of expression and like Kristi said, I think Plato's concern on too much freedom in art being culturally destructive is a foreshadow to many, i believe, arts today. Ideas on formality and composition were carried onto the 17th century from the Renaissance period. Crafting and execution to creating work was as fundamental as they are 'elements of nature'.
I feel social contex is art is something that is have always been present in art, even in the earliest forms suck as the caves of Lascaux there are social implications at hand, so its nothing new when this is seen in dutch art. all of the art that has survived the test of time has had varying degrees of social influence, I believe that is what makes it good art, if there is no social context there is nothing for the viewer to relate to. By adding the "reasoning" to the work there is a bond created between the artist and viewer, a level of relation. this is something that i can definitely see in Vermeers paintings.
I disagree with Plato's view that too much freedom in art could be destructive. Freedom in art is important in allowing an artist to express his/herself, even if it means offending someone. Someone will always be offended, no matter what, and censorship is more destructive in the end.
Ah yes, Plato's mysticism approach to 'freedom.' He lived in a slave-based society so granting too much 'freedom' would be a dangerous thing to a lot of people's welfare, wouldn't it? I always take anything Plato says with a grain of salt. The guy hated the natural world, despised human experience, and believed in a paranoid kind of elitism - that spreading knowledge around would destroy society.
Ideas are only dangerous if they are left unchallenged -if they are not exposed to the rigors of intellectual curiosity. Plato loved squirreling away his pet ideas to share only with an almost mystery cult-like group of impressionable individuals. There were other philosophers by contrast, such as the ionians, who believed that knowledge should be shared - it's not very surprising that Plato hated the Ionians a great deal.
Post a Comment