Considering interpretation and misinterpretation of art, I found this passage by Schreyach insightful:
“Those issues populate his [Newman] dense body of writings, which are a major resource for discerning his intent and interpreting his art. They are so important, in fact, that most if not all accounts of Newman’s paintings are advanced with repeated references to what the artist said about his work, using his own statements as support for claims about what it means or symbolizes.”
I recently had visitors to my studio and upon seeing a painting, they wanted clarification on what was in front of them. To my eyes, it was obvious; I am a representation painter, but perhaps I am so close to the subject, what is obvious to me, isn’t necessarily to others.
I am apprehensive of the need, and/or desire, for written explanation to justify aesthetic value. However, I also believe art criticism is paramount and can enlighten ones perspective. A work of art should, first and foremost, stand on its own through the artist’s vocabulary. One can debate the merits of how one responds to a work of art, but ultimately, its not clear to me how much it matters.
Corot said “Nothing has value except for the hunger one has for it…Things have real or fictive value only for the need or hunger for them by which we are seized…”
On a broader note, I find making my way through this book taxing, sometimes finding myself thinking, ‘enough, just look at the picture, don’t over-analyze it’. I respectfully submit this is research more than art criticism.
We had some family matters that have delayed my progress through the book beyond what I would like, and I apologize for that. That said, this is a dense read, and my attitude about it is that I admire Schreyach's mind enormously without feeling a need to emulate it. I am glad that someone is doing this work, because I wouldn't; I don't need it to make my art or look at Newman or really anything. On the other hand, I've never asked myself, to pick something, just what exactly is the picture plane. I have a feeling that my going through this book will have a long-term effect on my studio practice, though I can't articulate what it may be and it may be quite subtle. If anything it reassures me that my decision way back when not to get an art history PhD was the correct one. Professor Schreyach, Il miglior fabbro, at least as far as that's concerned.
Considering interpretation and misinterpretation of art, I found this passage by Schreyach insightful:
“Those issues populate his [Newman] dense body of writings, which are a major resource for discerning his intent and interpreting his art. They are so important, in fact, that most if not all accounts of Newman’s paintings are advanced with repeated references to what the artist said about his work, using his own statements as support for claims about what it means or symbolizes.”
I recently had visitors to my studio and upon seeing a painting, they wanted clarification on what was in front of them. To my eyes, it was obvious; I am a representation painter, but perhaps I am so close to the subject, what is obvious to me, isn’t necessarily to others.
I am apprehensive of the need, and/or desire, for written explanation to justify aesthetic value. However, I also believe art criticism is paramount and can enlighten ones perspective. A work of art should, first and foremost, stand on its own through the artist’s vocabulary. One can debate the merits of how one responds to a work of art, but ultimately, its not clear to me how much it matters.
Corot said “Nothing has value except for the hunger one has for it…Things have real or fictive value only for the need or hunger for them by which we are seized…”
On a broader note, I find making my way through this book taxing, sometimes finding myself thinking, ‘enough, just look at the picture, don’t over-analyze it’. I respectfully submit this is research more than art criticism.
We had some family matters that have delayed my progress through the book beyond what I would like, and I apologize for that. That said, this is a dense read, and my attitude about it is that I admire Schreyach's mind enormously without feeling a need to emulate it. I am glad that someone is doing this work, because I wouldn't; I don't need it to make my art or look at Newman or really anything. On the other hand, I've never asked myself, to pick something, just what exactly is the picture plane. I have a feeling that my going through this book will have a long-term effect on my studio practice, though I can't articulate what it may be and it may be quite subtle. If anything it reassures me that my decision way back when not to get an art history PhD was the correct one. Professor Schreyach, Il miglior fabbro, at least as far as that's concerned.
Well said, thank you.