Lascaux Caves, France:
Cave paintings from the Lascaux Caves in France have been preserved from 20,000 years ago. These paintings include images of cattle and various other animals, people, shapes and patterns, which are believed to be a way for people living in the Stone Age to record their days, much like a diary. Other theories suggest these paintings were attempts to communicate with a higher power, such as a God.
Images and symbols from these Lascaux cave paintings have since been retained in art and design today. An example of this is Cy Twombly's 2001 painting, Lepanto Panel 8 in his use of colour, shape and pattern. In this way it can be seen as a way of connecting the 21st Century to 20,000 years ago.
Another example of this can be seen through Richard Long's 1989 'Red Earth Circle' which was created using sand and mud. This piece of work enabled a continuity between aboriginal art and western contemporary art, much like the connections between Stone Age cave paintings and some 21st Century artworks.
However, this artwork raised the problem of cultural appropriation, defined as
- 'the adoption or use of elements of one culture by members of another culture'.
Cultural appropriation can be seen as controversial, particularly in art, when elements of a minority culture are used by members of another majority culture outside of their original cultural context, therefore seeming to diminishing the culture of it's identity.
Spiritual and Emotional Responses to Art:
Some works of art require travel to go and view, such as the Rothko Chapel, Houston, Texas which opened in 1971. On the walls are fourteen works of art by Mark Rothko, all painted black but with subtle colour hues, which vary depending on the lighting on each particular day. This chapel soon after opening became a place for international cultures to exchange religious and philosophical beliefs, a place of prayer, with some viewers displaying very spiritual and emotional responses towards the paintings.
However, it is argued that it may not be the case of the paintings themselves causing these types of responses. Is it simply the way the institution has framed the artwork?
The paintings displayed in the Rothko Chapel are laid out in an octagonal shaped room, where the walls are slightly darker (an off-white shade) and where the lighting is subtly dimmer than the rest of the rooms in the gallery. Because of this it is argued by some that it is in fact the institutional framing of particular works of art in galleries that create these emotional responses. Are these responses brought on through a sense institutional authority, whereby we behave in a way we think we are expected to behave rather than produce our own natural responses to the artwork?
Take the Mona Lisa by Leonardo Da Vinci for instance. Millions travel to the Louvre in France to view this iconic painting. Is this painting simply meaningful because of it's essential characteristics as a painting or is it because of the queues of people waiting to see it that creates it's meaning?
The Mona Lisa is the only piece of artwork protected behind bullet-proof glass. Again, is it the gallery that creates this importance because of the way it has been presented? Does displaying the artwork behind bullet-proof glass give the painting it's meaning?
Viewing Artwork in the Digital Age:
In the world of mobile phones, cameras, video recorders and the internet, it is a lot easier now to view artwork, in particular for free. However, this poses the problem of stealing and recycling artwork already created.
For example, Marcel Duchamp's 1919 piece of work 'LHOOQ' is a reproduction of Da Vinci's Mona Lisa whereby he drew a moustache and beard over the painting and renamed the title, which if pronounced in French sounds like "she is hot in the arse" (elle a chaud au cul). Works like this are becoming increasingly more common in the world of the internet, but is this not degrading the authority of art, in particular it's institutional authority?
Another example is Banksy's 2013 Mona Lisa Mujahideen, which show how these works of art are becoming commodities - such graffiti walls being knocked down for the sake of being placed in galleries. Again, this diminishes the authority and meaning of such pieces where it almost becomes no longer graffiti, as it is no longer a piece of free art on the streets to be enjoyed by everyone.
Abstract Expressionism:
Jackson Pollock was an American painter typically seen as the pioneer of abstract expressionism in the 1940's. His paintings were produced through flicks of paint onto paper or canvas which were very gestural and strategically placed.
This art movement was then banned by social realists, claiming that it had no real value or meaning as a piece of art, and that it was a limitation on people and art. For example, Roy Lichtenstein's 1965 'Red Painting' was a response to Pollock's work, suggesting it as a cultural weapon due to funding Pollock was receiving from the CIA for the use of his art as propaganda.
This raises the question as to whether or not his artworks were freedom of expression or simply expression for the sake of his funding? Do such artworks then become images of revolution and political struggle? Meanings are lost and changed through this process of using art as a weapon.
Viewing Art in the Digital Age (2):
The use of art as a symbol for something or as propaganda is enhanced through the use of the internet in the 21st Century. For example, Jean Jullien's 2014 Peace for Paris illustration became an unofficial symbol of solidarity between people at the time of the Paris terror attacks. It shows how an automatic, spontaneous moment of expression can be reused through the internet until it eventually becomes known as a symbol for a major world event or crisis. The same can be said for photographs, paintings, etc.
This shows how throughout history, image making can be used to bring something to life or even seen to preserve it, and how the development of the internet has impacted the ways in which we now view art.
No comments:
Post a Comment