|
|
Currently, there is an exhibit of work by M. C. Escher (1898-1972) at the Rochester Memorial Art Gallery (closing 29 January) and there is an exhibit of work by Pablo Picasso (1881-1973) at the Buffalo Albright-Knox Art Gallery (closing 19 February).
Having seen both exhibits, and considering that they were both artists of the early and mid-20th century, made me consider how they both are alike as well as different.
First, let's review briefly the criticisms about both; usually most art historians knock on Escher while they tout Picasso as a revolutionary and, of course, as one of the Great Artists of the Century. They tell us that Cubism is a natural development from the artwork of Cezanne and, perhaps, parallels the great discoveries in science at the time.
All very well. I happen to like much of the work by Picasso, Braque, Gris, and anyone else who took up the cubist exploration of forms on a 2-D plane. After a long history of artists attempting to show the space of the figure in the plane, and long after Western artists resolved it with perspective, the new use of space by Picasso et al. was a worthy accomplishment philosophically as well as visually.
I agree with this line of thought; no debate here.
I find that the problem is how the same art historians will gladly pass on artwork by Escher. "Clever illustration," "sophomoric," "...the kind of art you leave in your 20's," are typical remarks about his drawings and prints.
Well, it is time to re-visit Escher and Art; it even causes one to ask the question "What is Art?" A very big question, certainly, but relevant to understanding.
Another question is whether Escher contributed anything new to Art. A third might be how he measures up to other artists in his time period.
The broadest question is the biggest one, and "What is Art?" is among the important philosophical questions. Of course, this means that there are many responses with no one reply known as definitive.
Is Art the re-presentation of another vision of reality or the vision of another reality? That is my definition, and to this Escher's work fits. Granted, that leaves room for a lot of other work that is not meant as Fine Art.
And yet, if Fine Art also means important ideas about both Art and the world, then I think Escher's use of space in the plane is as sophisticated as anything the cubists imagined.
Of course, this would answer the second question as to a contribution to the visual arts.
The last question, just how does Escher measure up to other artists of his time period, is tricky. The one artist whom I can think influenced Escher with certainty is Oscar Reutersvard. Reutersvard is little known today, but though younger than Escher his impossible objects likely played an important part in Escher's development. As much so, I think, as did the Italian landscapes and Moorish tilework.
Reutersvard remains the outstanding crafter of impossible objects, http://im-possible.info/english/art/reutersvard/, but I think Escher gave them life. I say this without diminishing the achievements of Reutersvard's imagination.
In this light, Escher's drawings of people and landscapes early on became part of the foundation for his imagination along with Moorish tessellation and Reutersvard's creation.
Nice rhyme, but fine words butter no parsnips. Just how do I think Escher measures up to the big-name artists of the 20th century?
I know that I am in the minority, but I believe that Escher's art reflected the big questions as much as did the work of the cubists, dadaists, surrealists, abstract expressionists, and pop artists. Philosophically, they are mathematical paradoxes about the human environment. Visually, they intrigue me as much as other 20th century work. They cause me to think not only about the world in which I live but also about what it means to make Art.
And isn't that at least a part of what Art is about?
No comments:
Post a Comment