Saturday, May 22, 2021

Hogarth, Goya, and the Enlightenment Period

Francisco Goya, The Third of May (1814)

            William Hogarth (1697-1764) and Francisco Jose de Goya y Lucientes (1746-1828) overlap well as artistic expressions about Europe, at least Western Europe, in political transition before and during the Enlightenment.  Hogarth the Englishman and Goya the Spaniard contrast in a few ways such as nationality (obviously), political atmosphere (English Parliamentary system with monarchy and Spain with a monarchy), and culture wherein both societies favored foreign artists somewhat over the locals.

    Parallels reveal themselves, however, upon closer look at the details of their lives.  Both had parents who had some kind of professional, if not class, pull; Richard Hogarth was a schoolmaster and Latin scholar, Jose Goya was the son of a notary as well as skilled as a gilder with a wife, Dona Gracia, who was a bidalgo, a member of the aristocratic lower strata.  Hogarth and Goya attended the primary and secondary levels of school after which both attended schools of trade either in engraving (Hogarth) or painting (Goya). 

    As artists, I see that they shared an outlook that included the common person without necessarily romanticizing or always satirizing their roles, similarly so with the aristocracy.  They did this sometime objectively, sometime subjectively, brutally so, to show the degradation of humanity in its trudging along their lives.  They displayed how hopes could become misfortunes, how a victory may backfire, and occasionally how humor may save the day.

    Living during the Enlightenment era, they saw and surely knew about some of the high hopes this new way of thinking raised, that people could vote for representatives instead of taking it for granted that clergy and royalty always knew what was best for the population.  Among its proponents, the faith was that humanity could employ Reason so as to find order in life and society, and figure out the next best step to take.  The notion that it was not witchcraft that was a problem but religious bigotry or that tolerance was preferable to prejudice, and that justice was a matter of public and private concern, remain admirable aspects of the Enlightenment legacy down to this day.

Nonetheless, society dissolution, if not also wartime invasion, dispelled these grand feelings of optimism, forcing these artists to present the challenge of reality in either a sarcastic or savage way.  Hogarth’s series Marriage a la Mode or “Marriage in the Current Fashion,” is one of many series of paintings and prints that offered severe criticism of urban life.  The “Election” series is one that, unfortunately, may hold true in democracies everywhere. 

Likewise, Goya, seeing the ruin of the promise of Charles IV and, later, the catastrophe of the Napoleonic invasion (1807-1814), offered many depictions about the tragedy of Spain.  His print series’ title The Disasters of War sums it up economically, exhibiting gory details of combat and torture, apathy and cruelty.

These artists presented the beginnings of our outlook, one that encompasses the Industrial Revolution as well as the current Information Age.  Sadly, it is an outlook that has inured us to scenes of malice and viciousness, accustomed as we are to seeing these on the television or internet news reports.  The good news is these artists still may prick our conscience when we may be prone to nod off during times of state-sanctioned violence and social corruption.

 

Sunday, April 11, 2021

How to Make Art or Is That the Right Question?

Can you teach someone how to make art?   That’s a tough question to investigate so first let’s say that it seems simpler asking if you can teach someone how to draw, to sculpt, to play music, to design a poem, et cetera.

Let’s take painting as our field of expression.  Someone wants to learn how to paint artistically so they take a class on painting, and they learn rather well.  After they finish the course they prepare to construct a painting, buy all the right brushes, paints, and buy a sturdy support as a board for the surface upon which they’re going to paint the imagery.  And these are all the materials the instructor recommended.

So far, so good.

They already have a particular subject in mind, it may be their interpretation of a still-life or an expression of their mood, possibly both.  They know how to paint, they have the right tools, and now they have subject and off they go.  The confidence to do so is certainly there, they did very well in the class and are sure they will continue to do so outside the school studio.

Are they producing what we call art?

Now, if there were a school that claimed “study here and we will teach you how to make visual art” that would be quite a claim.  Because if there were a formula or primer or recipe for making visual art I think it would cease to be art.  I would say that would be more like a factory assembly line, similar to a paint-by-numbers image that does not re-present anything that the person wanted to express but only their mastery of the formula and technical skill in using the tools to get that result.

For instance, there have been and are those who are able to draw and paint as well as the 18th century painter Chardin (you may insert any artist’s name here), but they are not half the artist he was. 

Don’t misunderstand me, technical skill and having the right tools to re-present an image are notable, maybe even foundational.  Granted, both may be topics for a lively debate—what do we mean by technical skill in the field of painting, what are the right tools?—but here I only mean that these are what are necessary for the painter to achieve the desired imagery, however they construe “technical skill” and “right tools.”

Further, you see images that were painted on a rock surface from, say, 20,000 or more years ago and you think they are beautiful.  You do not know the people who painted these images, don’t have a clue as to why they painted them, but you think that they are art.  Why is that?

And if they are art, who taught them?  Was there a “Bedrock School of Art”?  Certainly, someone tried to do this previously however long before, then after one or several generations of artists they had a handle on painting at least as a craft.  Although most of us would say that many if not all cave paintings fit what our society considers as art, it prods a re-thinking just what we mean by that term. 

E.g., did our ancestors think that they were “making art”?   If not, then what does that mean for the notion of teaching others to create art?