At the heart of Art History Professor Todd Cronan's presentation, From Postmodernism to Modernism: Painting as Affect Machine, was the conflict between what a work of art means vs. what it does to the viewer. Cronan illustrated the issue with several classic paintings, accompanied by statements from other learned art historians and critics. Yve-Alain Bois wrote that his body produced a physical reaction to the violence he saw in Henri Matisse's "Harmony in Red". Bois likened the experience of viewing the saturated red color in the painting to actual physical trauma. Painter Wassily Kandinsky believed that "color is a means of exerting a direct influence upon the soul". In his view, yellow was always aggressive and unsettling to the viewer. Modernist artists believed that color and line alone could affect the audience. Horizontal lines, for instance, always recalled the horizon and expressed a sense of relaxation. These Modernists valued the physical response a piece of art could induce over the mental comprehension of work.
Cronan believes that meaning is more relevant than physical reactions. He argues that the meaning of the work lies in the artist's original intention. While the viewer may formulate multiple assessments of a painting in response to its meaning, the physical affects, "are not debatable". If a certain painting, by the likes of Francis Bacon, makes your stomach hurt, that is not up for discussion. Art work must be valued beyond its immediate impact on the body.
I was very impressed with Cronan's arguments. He produced arguments and quotations from credible sources on both sides of the issue. It seems strange that one would limit an artwork to just a physical sensation, and not proceed to examine the content of the work.
No comments:
Post a Comment