Kinkade (SHUDDER):
Basquiat:
Monday, October 12, 2009
Rousseau on Art
Okay, I'm tearin' up the blog today because I accidentally got kind of into it (GEEK). So even though I already posted, I wanted to pose a question that came to mind during our discussion of Rousseau. We talked about his assessment of morality as compromised by an excess of concentration on societal influences to the point that the real artist, or the ones who are genius, are the ones who diverge radically from the norm. My question is how a concept like that comes into play in the art world. There are two basic schools of considering contemporary art as "good." One is contextual, wherein the validity of an artwork is based on what came before it, and the other is intrinsic, wherein specific pieces and styles have qualities that distinguish them as good art. Ideally, both of theses factors should go into the judgement of contemporary art, but in general contextualism is king. Thus what is judged as new and radically different is judged as good, even when it intrinsically is not. Therefore, the status quo for contemporary art has become extreme divergences from the norm. Therefore, does Rousseau's philosophy presume to judge an artist who paints trite landscapes like Bob Ross or Thomas Kinkade to be more morally sound (since they paint things completely different than what the art world considers genius) than an artist like Jean-Michel Basquiat who does something radically different than the norm (since such a practice has become the status quo)?
Kinkade (SHUDDER):
Basquiat:
Kinkade (SHUDDER):
Basquiat:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Emma, I'm a bit confused about your question. You begin by stating that Rousseau's problem with convention and custom is that they constrain us ("teach" would be too weak; Rousseau would say that the influence is so pervasive that we actually believe this is what we *want*) to perpetually ignore or hide our individual genius. You then apply this to the contemporary art world--which, if I'm reading you correctly, you are considering from the perspective of criticism and economy rather than that of the artist. You then ask if Rousseau would find artists who paint trite landscapes (and I believe your characterization of Kinkaid to be quite sound on this point) to be more morally sound than someone like Basquiat.
ReplyDeleteA couple of points to consider: First, Rousseau would have much to say about the world of contemporary visual art, although it is a bit more difficult to apply his ideas to the art world post-Romanticism. The (art) world has changed so much since Rousseau, the comparison becomes complicated--not least of which because Rousseau himself was such an icon of the revolutionary epistemological changes regarding individual liberty and genius. (Attached I have posted a picture by Danhauser entitled "Franz Liszt Improvising at the Piano," 1840. In the picture you will see a group of the "New Bohemians" depicted: Liszt, Dumas, George Sand, Berlioz, Paganini, Rossini, etc. What's of more interest, of course, is the portrait of Byron in the background and the bust of Beethoven. Given the nature and placement of the bust "on the piano," against the stormy landscape backdrop, he looks much more like a distant god looking down on his subjects than a simple sculpture. The intent is obvious: this is the celebration of Rousseau's world epitomized by the deification of "The Man Who Freed Music.") In other words: On the one hand, the revolutions in art during and post-Romanticism in many ways would have pleased Rousseau, insofar as Romanticism itself was the celebration of genius over against the ancien regime of religion, monarchy, feudalism, etc. On the other hand, Rousseau would certainly have decried the result, that "revolutions" became simply paradigm shifts, wherein each succeeding revolutionary herself becomes the new paradigm. Finally, the extreme development of this might be what is loosely called "modern art," considered not simply in visual but in all its different manifestations. It is hard to say what Rousseau would think of people like Basquiat or any other host of artists (Mondrian comes to mind) who pushed the limits of that which is considered art intentionally without actually necessarily having any concern for aesthetic appreciation or beauty.
Second, if I understand your post correctly, wouldn't it be more likely that Rousseau would celebrate the genius of he who broke the mold according to his genius rather than she who followed it? Again, pace those who would simply create difference for its own sake (which is a separate issue), wouldn't Kinkaid be a more likely candidate for Rousseau's approbation than Basquiat--even if solely on the basis of his lukewarm, milquetoast, lucrative landscapes? Put another way, don't both your statement regarding conventionalism being "king" in the world of criticism as well as Kinkaid's widespread success prove Rousseau's point? Does this not confirm--in spite of the revolutionary spirit which has resurfaced every few generations since Rousseau--Rousseau is generally correct in his estimation of the laziness (NOT the stupidity) of humans in society?
Harwood your comments are intimidating, I have a slight feeling you may possibly be scaring people off...just a thought...
ReplyDeleteEmma, I'm not exxxactly quite sure what Harwood just said but I completely get what you are saying! I definitely do not think Rousseau would say Kinkade was following his own genius, but instead just perfecting what he was taught. I also don't think he would say Basquiat was following his own genius either, if it is in fact that status quo to be different in art, as you said.
This point crossed my mind during class ( yes Professor Harwood, I do pay attention) , not in relation to art but in relation to the ever popular "hipsters". If so many people start doing the "different" thing (i.e. wearing different clothes and listening to different music) rather than the original norm, then doesn't, at some point, the "different" thing become the new norm? I think Rousseau would say those who are doing the "different" thing weren't actually being uniquely different or following their own genius. Instead they were just following another group who did something alternative to the norm. In order to tap into your own genius, you cant keep following groups, no matter how "different" they claim to be; you have to lead yourself, not follow others.
It's funny that you included Thomas Kinkade in your example about art, because he actually came to mind when we talked about art and Rousseau in class. I believe that Rousseau would think that Kinkade was an artists who wasn't following his genius and included in the bad side of arts and scientists. Thomas Kinkade isn't expressing himself and his genius by painting pictures of lighthouses and landscapes. He sells his pictures for profit. Kinkade isn't doing anything special or contributing to society. He is just flooding society with his unoriginial paintings. I think Kinkade could be compared to the art work and sculpture that Rousseau talked and how it was show of luxury and wealth and no real talent.
ReplyDeleteJust to add one some more about Kinkade.. I'm pretty sure that his paintings are either machine produced or he has other people paint details onto paintings that are mass produced and has these people set up in galleries in malls making them seem really talented when they're not.. I mean these people obviously have the talent to paint, but they're basically painting by number or something like you did as a kid they're just completing something a machine started.. definitely not following their own artistic genius, Rousseau would not approve.
ReplyDeleteI think what Rousseau comes down to is everyone should follow their genius. If this leads you to conform with the rest of society then so be it. If you genius is painting landscapes then you should follow it passionately even if you’re not breaking new ground. I think Rousseau would have equal respect for both artists so long as both are following their genius. This is because neither is breaking new ground or “shifting the paradigm” as Harwood stated it. They are simply performing in the area of art they are best at.
ReplyDeleteA shifting of the paradigm only affects what people are persuaded into doing. It’s a shift in the norm. The underlying problem is not which paradigm someone chooses to follow but whether they’re following their own genius and not what society tells them is good art.
Also my personal comment on art: It takes much more talent to paint a lifelike scene than some of the other work that is made today.
Also a plumber is not necessarily original. But should we be questioning his originality? Or whether or not he is doing what he is good at. Even though he could have been a mediocre lawyer, or doctor.
ReplyDelete