last chapterContentsBurning Coal
Bibliographynext chapter|
last chapter |
Contents |
Burning Coal |
Bibliography |
next chapter |
"When men make gods, there is no God!" (Eugene O'Neill, 'Lazarus Laughed', act 2, scene 2)
Early Greek art shows much of the formalism of Egypt, although on a much smaller scale. Greek formalism allows room for inventiveness. The reason is not hard to trace if we look at the example of Egypt in the last chapter. Egypt is a large kingdom with rigid centralized control of politics and religion. The arts are forced to adhere to centralized standards dictated by the priestly class for the maintenance of a centrally controlled spiritual vision.
Greece was not a single kingdom, but a patchwork of small city states, which tended toward a looser democratic form of governance. Instead of large state run temples tended by a powerful priesthood, Greek religion relied on many small cultic shrines and statues, each tended by its own priesthood, (Hauser, 1951, pp.51-55). Early Greek states, although democratic, are still very group oriented, (Pollitt, 1972, pp.10-14). Greek religion in this period is the product of group consensus. Like any people living on the constant edge of extinction, a fear of chaos (Pollitt, 1972, pg.3) keeps Greek art somewhat rigid.
By the 7th century B.C.E. Greek settlers are spreading to Egypt, the Middle East, Asia Minor, Spain and Italy. Greece is becoming a thriving center for commerce. This success allowed more individuality and a looser democratic form of religious expression. Herodotus tells us that the Egyptian king Psammetichos (c.660-609 B.C.E.) allowed Greeks to settle on the Nile, (Richter, 1974, Pg.56). Greek art, which was now thriving, shows an immediate influence from Egypt and the East. Greek artists are now walking a fine line between formality and convention on one side and inventiveness and experimentation on the other. "Just as Greek poets 'avoided the appearance of originality' and 'treated a traditional theme in a conventional style and form' (Thomson, pg.22) so Greek artists used certain accepted types for the expression of their thought. No sculptor, however, merely reproduced the work of another; each renovated the familiar theme, continually advancing on the path of naturalism." (Richter, 1974, pg.57). The plays of Aeschylus from the end of this period show a deference the gods and to the formal structures of dramatic rite, but with an exuberant exploration with the human side of the gods. He has deference but is not afraid of offending.
The defeat of the Persian fleet by Athens at the battle of Salamis in 480 B.C.E. and subsequent Greek victories leading to the defeat of Persia and the Peace of Callias, give the Greek peoples a renewed self-confidence, (Pollitt, 1972, pg.22). This ushers in a new period of exuberance in Greek politics, religion, philosophy and art, which we know as the classical period. The Persians had sacked the Acropolis in Athens and Pericles who came to dominate Athenian politics embarked on a significant building program. The Parthenon built between 447 and 432 B.C.E. shows a remarkable development. The frieze surrounding it seems to include contemporary people. "Greek architectural sculpture had always in the past represented the archetypal actions of gods and legendary heroes. If in the Parthenon frieze the Athenians have in fact inserted a picture of themselves into a context normally reserved for gods and demi-gods, the innovation is only explicable in the light of the humanistic idealism and confidence of Periclean Athens." (Pollitt, 1972, pg.87).
Art rushes to the fluidity and naturalism that we know as Greek classical art. Playwrites can now use the gods as a backdrop for the study of the human condition. In the visual arts the stiff poses of the archaic period are gone. In its place is so much flesh, a sensuality unparalleled in the ancient world.
So what has happened to the spiritual underpinnings of art. Religion is now wild and chaotic, but to many it is vapid, unimportant or simply wrong. Philosophers analyse the meaning and the morals, experimentation with new and foreign cults is common, but mostly the average citizen is released from all religious obligation. It is not surprising that the focus is now very personal, human and self-focussed.
Following the age of Greece and Rome, Rome being an extension of Greek art in many ways, Europe returns to a formalism in the arts, reflecting a return to spiritual concerns and a re-institution of central authority following the sacking of Rome. The next chapter deals with this period. The exuberance of the flesh does not return in full until the Enlightenment.
Western culture, beginning with the Enlightenment, is suffused with a refound self-confidence. This aggressive spirit challenges the known world and changes it brick by brick. Beginning with fifteenth century Italy, "widespread inquiry concerning the world now sponsored the evolution of specific techniques and representational devices in sculpture and painting - anatomy, mathematical perspective (i.e. projective geometry), aerial perspective, and the like." (Myers, 1967, pg.204). The stiff body casings and large probing eyes suddenly gave way to the sensual bodies, carefully drawn from intensive studies of cadavers. The gilded doll house spaces are replaced by receding depths, drawing the eye back to some unfinished quest. A fascination with the spirit had been replaced by a fascination with the physical, in the arts no less than in the universities. Da Vinci and Michaelangelo were leaders of the age, protected and supported by Popes, Cardinals and princes. Themes from Greek and Roman mythology are once again acceptable, even within Vatican City.
The church at this point, while remaining one of the most important patrons of the arts, begins wielding less and less spiritual control over the arts. The high calling of God is once again giving way to a self-focussed interest in naturalism, humanity and the earthy life. The unabashed nudity of Enlightenment art gazes intently at the flesh. The artist is weaving fleshly visions around spiritual themes, indicative of a total disregard of spirituality within the higher levels of the church.
The protestant revolution brings an understandable reaction against the arts. The more intensely spiritual the reformer the more likely to strip their world of artist adornment altogether. From clothing to cathedral all frill, all flesh, and all color is gone. What is left is an elegant simplicity most powerfully expressed by the Shakers. While the court culture of the age is giving the artists free reign, Puritans and other Protestants are expressing their antipathy to this fleshy art in an iconoclastic simplicity.
Perhaps the greatest irony of modern art is that its elite position in culture could not fully exist before the French revolution. With the breaking of the aristocracy's stranglehold on European culture, the artist was freed of the social control that had held the artisans in place. Competing elites could now flourish. A sort of artistic republicanism took over, whereby artists as their own representatives could vie for cultural leadership.
Romanticism had already spawned the salon, where aristocrats gathered with artists to admire art. Favored artists were rewarded with a place at the table of the most important and artistically aware aristocrats. The seed of artistic self-importance had been planted. When the French revolution brought down the aristocracy, both the bourgeois and the artist were free to express and to act on their self-importance.
Robert Hughes, in the book to his BBC documentary "The Shock of the New", suggests "the idea of a cultural avante-garde was unimaginable before 1800. It was fostered by the rise of the European bourgeoisie and its liberal beliefs. In a world where the tastes of courts, religious or secular, determined patronage, the idea of 'subversive' innovation as the basis of artistic development could not have occurred, nor could the Romantic worship of the artist's creative powers. Not until the nineteenth century, when God began to die in good earnest, would his traits of omnipotence and self-sufficiency become displaced onto the figure of the painter or sculptor, or art itself became a substitute for religious experience. That the meaning of works of art should be controlled by patronage, and therefore by dogma, ideology, and political needs, was simply one of the donnees of creative work before the bourgeois triumph of 1789, and not yet an intolerable invasion of the artist's realm." (Hughes, 1980, pg.366).
The crumbling of the old order, and the explosion of social and economic theories from a multitude of new voices encouraged artists to rethink their own profession. The artist was now captain of their own vessel. Groups of artists formed outside of the circle of patrons. Not only did these gatherings foster new approaches to art, they also became the hotbed of new theories which soon changed the rules of the game. Courbet, who I discuss later, was one of the first well known artists without visible patronage. He perfected the Bohemian outsider image still essential to new artists and arts movements, (Wolfe, 1975).
According to sociologist Diane Crane, "the conflicting conceptions of the artistic role at the present time have their origins in a wider range of artistic roles that emerged in the fragmentation of modern society, the artist was free to assume social attitudes that would not have been acceptable in earlier periods when the arts were patronized by a social elite whose values they reflected. Two artistic roles which emerged during this period were those of iconoclast and aesthetic innovator. The early iconoclasts saw art as a way of attacking bourgeois conventions, as in the case of Impressionist painters such as Manet." (Crane, 1987, pg.138).
"Already the writers are complaining that there is too much freedom. They need some pressure. The worse your daily life, the better your art. If you have to be careful because of oppression and censorship, this pressure produces diamonds." (Tatyana Tolstaya, Russian author, 1990).
Our modern culture is by now so thoroughly democratized that leadership seems impossible. Every individual's opinion is just as important as the President's opinion. As a result, every decision is picked apart by the press, by interest groups and by the political opposition. We are approaching anarchy. In the vacuum of leadership, style outweighs substance. With so many opinions, opinions cease to count. The appearance of leadership is much safer than leadership. An actor can play the part of the president better than a seasoned politician. The success of a company is determine not by the admiration of customers and employees, but by the value in the stock market.
"The ultimate irony is that the democratization of art has resulted in the most undemocratic situation: how you look determines who you are, and cash determines casts. In this situation, it is no surprise that art has turned into fashion. When people line up at discotheques and restaurants not to dance or to eat but to look at the decor, you know that life, not art, has become the spectator sport." (Rose, 1988, pp.292-293). Underneath this statement is the creeping concern that the substance of art, spiritual depth, has been entirely lost. What is left is how well the shell of art can be positioned in a Fung Shui decor.
Has art become elitist? The democracy of the situation has not ceased to exist. The undemocratic nature to which Diane Rose refers above is caused by institutions which are designed to seperate 'Art' from the anarchy of artistic output. 'Art' is sanctioned by showings in major galleries, museums, or other institutions of the 'Arts'. Much of modern art is elite enterprise, because it is filtered through those cultural channels. The result is that "Fine Art" is created by specialists for a small portion of the public who have been well educated to be able to appreciate the various 'isms of the arts.
How do these specialized arts institutions gain their significance. First they are intimately associated with and often supported by academic institutions. These same academic institutions teach the courses and publish the books which teach us what to look for in 'Art'. On the other hand, there is popular 'art'. Popular art is controlled by large movie studios, publishers, and other media producers. They gain their significance by sheer volume and accessibility.
It is cliché to bemone the lack of access to publishing and other media outlets. But the mere fact that you can read this attests to the fact that there is no lack of outlets for the artistic or scholarly enterprise. The issue is how an artist can be heard above the din of so many voices. I have worked in the arts for several decades and can assure you that talent is not enough, not because there so many barriers, but because there is so much talent. The barriers are there to so that the decision makers don't have to listen to all the American Idol hopefuls. Genuine talent will natural rise above the rest. Talent that gains an audience will attract the publishers, the pundits, the studios, etc.
So the ultimate force limiting the arts is the public's appetite. The public is willing to support the fine arts through the National Endowment for the Arts and through corporate grants. Corporations generally make these grants based on the image that it projects to the consumer of their products. Popular arts are directly voted on by the tickets sold, the books sold, or the number of viewers willing to sit through the advertizing. Essentially this means that all the talent in the world means nothing unless there is a large enough, or significant enough slice of the public interested.
|
last chapter |
Contents |
Burning Coal |
Bibliography |
next chapter |
