Commentary: The Fine Arts: Restructured Realism By Ted Seth Jacobs, Painter Les Cerqueux sous Passavant, France For me the word art connotes an acquired skill,
a knowledge of principles, a special activity, artfulness and artifice,
creativity and the expression of emotions through a form. One can scream in
anger, conveying clear strong emotion, but it is not artful in the way a
vocalization of Pergolesi’s Stabat Mater can be. Art is the expression of
emotions, yes, but filtered through a discipline. Sine scientia ars nihil est. Years ago I was strolling through the Solely by virtue of being exhibited in a museum
did they putatively become a work of
art. Roles had been reversed. The museum was de facto creating the work of art. In that same museum I supposed
that a metal grill on the wall was another exhibited piece, but it was an air
vent. If absolutely anything can be qualified as art the term has become so
inclusive as to lose all meaning. I believe this phenomenon has societal
implications. The so-called person-in-the-street visits a prestigious
institution. He or she sees a pile of bricks on the floor that is considered
important enough to be shown in a museum. Perhaps there is a subliminal
recognition that if anything can be considered important, then nothing is
really important, including human existence. Critics, art teachers, curators are often fond
of saying that realism is dead, that everything has already been done. This is
false. What has died is the inspiration of the artists. There are manifold movements in art. One can be
called a Realist tradition. It follows an evolutionary development from
pre-historic Cycladic art to the present. The aim of one realist lineage is to
create the optimum suggestion in paint of what the eyes see. This research is
similar to a scientific discipline, a sort of edifice constructed by successive
additions over many generations. Historically, innovators have assimilated the
knowledge and principles of the past and then added their discoveries. As Perhaps every generation gets the art is
deserves. Our consumerist materialist epoch is rife with forms of Non-Art,
fueled by the mentality of the advertising medium. A hot new idea, a catchy
brand name. Today there is a deep-seated confusion between
art and literature. An art can be considered meaningful if an interesting story
can be derived from it, a theory, a social statement, the use of unexpected
mediums. Art is a visual means of expression, literature
a verbal one. An artist is an image maker. If the principal value of a work of
art derives from a verbal description or explanation, there is really no need
to paint it. In fact, I have seen exhibited in a museum a
framed paper describing what the artist intended to paint as a picture…which
was never painted. There exists an esthetic choice in figurative
art whose roots can be found in antiquity. The idea is to seize upon what is
considered most important for the image and eliminate everything else as
extraneous. Leave out any details that might weaken the effect. Especially
since the onset of the Industrial Age the simplifying style has predominated.
In Victorian portraiture, for example, the focus was on the features, and the
rest of the face and all its complex structures were smoothed out. The head was
considered as an oval mass, and once the features were defined, in order to create
a sense of solidity some summary shadows were indicated and a flat layer of
middling intensity of light covered the head, with the addition of some lighter
zones blended into the mass to give roundness. Visual reality -- what we see -- does not look
like a smoothed-out painting. In my own work I try to suggest the process of
vision. I would like to stress the word ‘suggest.’ A picture is paint on canvas.
What we see is a living process in the consciousness. These are two different
worlds. The more closely the painted shapes and tones correspond to the
relationships in the visual field, the more real the image will appear. To
borrow from computer terminology, that visual field contains a numberless
quantity of ‘pixels.’ I find that the more visual information I can paint the
more the image resembles what the eyes see. At given moments in history there seem to be
ideas that float in the atmosphere, as if their time for expression has
arrived. Feynman remarked that ‘There’s plenty of room at the bottom,’ and
Nanotechnology was born. Ours is the Information Age, and it is time art caught
up with it. Most of what is called Realist Art today is a
reworking of the past, especially of the Nineteenth Century, which promoted
extreme simplification. Art cannot advance by going backward. I named my style
Restructured Realism because I would like to think that it reconnects with the
visual tradition of the past and brings it into the present, evolves it into a
contemporary interpretation of our
visual experience. There has been in fact a direct evolution
through the centuries. The palette,
or range of colors and light intensities has steadily grown brighter. The
visual field can be broken down into much smaller constituents than has been
done before. In the study of structure, how organic forms are made and how they
function, the elements can be greatly subdivided into very small fractal
components, more than has been attempted in the past. Nor does life look like the dark brown painting
of much contemporary realism. Our world is very colorful. I would wish to bring
to art the beauty and freshness of the clear brilliant tonalities of the light
of day. [ BWW Society Home Page ] © 2011 The Bibliotheque: World Wide Society |