Archive for the '3.4 Still life after 1900' Category

UA1-WA:P3-p4-Exercise: Visit an artist’s studio

For this exercise the course requires a visit to an artist’s studio, looking for two things – information about the technical means of professional practice, and a sense of the artist’s source of inspiration. I visited Peter Griffen and Denise Lithgow in their shared studio / home space. Denise and Peter were very generous with their time and it was very interesting as we sat together to hear them talk about each other’s work as well as their own and to see how they each learn from, support and challenge the other.

Peter Griffen and Denise Lithgow

Peter Griffen and Denise Lithgow
Sitting at the dining table in their studio / home


I’ve visited and written about their space in the past when I did a weekend workshop with Peter (see 2-March-2012). From my post then:

griffen06It’s an amazing, exciting, inspiring, overwhelming place. Formerly a factory, Peter and Denise gutted the building and it’s basically one huge room with a mezzanine and some closed areas at each end (bathrooms, storage, their bedroom). This photo was taken from the back mezzanine. The kitchen area is down to the right, left you can just see a corner of the lounge area, but not the dining table which is closer on the left. Middle right is a display area for Denise’s work and the front mezzanine is her studio – but the main space is Peter’s studio and workshop area.

Peter Griffen
peter_griffen_02Peter’s studio is large and airy and well lit with a series of sky lights supplemented by banks of florescent lights. The large open space and long high walls allow him to keep many works on view at one time and he is constantly moving things around as work progresses. There is also plenty of space for multiple tables for workshop students.

peter_griffen_04Peter has traveled extensively in Australia and he sketches and paints en plein air. This work is one of a series from a 2013 trip to the Flinders Ranges in South Australia (more of the series can be seen on his facebook page Peter Griffen Art – click here). He also takes reference photographs which he may or may not refer to as a source for particular details or ideas, but isn’t interested in working directly from a photo. In fact he likes to continue working on the paintings away from the source, back at his studio. There he can only look at the painting, concentrating on making it better – as a painting, not a copy of something seen.

peter_griffen_06The combination of studio and home supports Peter’s working methods. Works may begin on a location with the source before him or in the studio in a chaos of poured, painted and scrapped paint. Many then undergo a long period of development including extensive editing and blocking out as areas of interest are identified, and the application of multiple layers of glaze. In this example the work was at one stage red and busy, then blocked out to reveal a classic Australian narrative of the bushranger. The many glazes have created a luminous, rather eerie, pearlescent surface.

peter_griffen_03This process of editing, discovery, analysis, development and transformation can take years in some cases. Living constantly surrounded by his work Peter is able to consider the possibilities, to make a change or apply a glaze, then work on other paintings while he ponders his next move. He may find a mark or a rhythm which he hangs on to, develops, which drives the whole composition. However he is also willing to let it go if it becomes a negative, limiting his freedom.

peter_griffen_05Probably the majority of Peter’s work is in acrylic paint on canvas or paper, but he also uses oils, charcoal, gouache… He may collage paper previously painted or incorporate found objects – paintbrushes, chop sticks, gourds, whatever meets his current purpose.

Most often Peter uses a brush with his canvas on the floor or an easel, but he’s always open to other opportunities. An episode of Landline shows Peter pouring paint, dragging it across the canvas with a board, using a palette knife or his hands, even stamping a canvas into a sand dune near Birdsville.

peter_griffen_07Much of Peter’s inspiration comes from the Australian landscape and it can be an underlying source in abstract works. The Australian sun – light and heat – pulses from some paintings, the strong colours vibrating. These aren’t the literal colours of the Australian landscape, but an emotional reaction to it. They are theatrical, exaggerating the truth, but being based in truth are accepted by the viewer as “right”. Peter sometimes works from memory and emotion rather than a specific landscape. When travelling overseas it can take a few days of frustration before Peter gets the colour “right”. Similarly studio work needs to be completed soon after his return, before re-acclimation.

Peter’s is an intuitive approach, where a shape can be a cliff or sounds or a bird, or just a shape. I’ve focused on the landscape and abstract in Peter’s work, but his oeuvre includes figure and still life works.

Peter’s knowledge of art history allows him to reference many other artists in his paintings or in his thinking and writing about his work. Links can be made to Australian artists including Sidney Nolan, Arthur Boyd, Guy Warren and Rosalie Gascoigne as well as artists from elsewhere such as Jean Dubuffet, Anselm Kiefer, Paul Klee and Henri Matisse.

denise_lithgow_04Denise Lithgow

denise_lithgow_01Denise has a dedicated studio in the front mezzanine area of the building. It includes a very large work table, dedicated space for the sewing machine, shelves and plastic storage tubs full of fibres and fabrics, a couch, mannequin form, areas to hang works in progress, and hanging on a wall are textile pieces created by family members. Denise uses the main floor area when working on large felt pieces. Also downstairs is her rocket steamer, critical equipment for her silk painting.

denise_lithgow_02denise_lithgow_03denise_lithgow_06denise_lithgow_05The combination of home and studio allows Denise to maximise her creative time while continuing to work four days a week in a busy busy and demanding role in a hospital. She will often come home from the day job and work until the early hours of the morning in her studio.

Denise uses a variety of textile techniques in her work. The work shown to the right is from her painting gallery, a collage incorporating fabrics, threads and free machine embroidery. To my eyes the colours and shapes clearly reference Australian landscape and flora, but I am less sure of the title “Distant Hills” given on her website.

The second photograph shows a vessel created in felt. Denise is currently working on a series of large vessels to be included in her upcoming solo exhibition at the Muswellbrook Regional Arts Centre. For any reader coming from an art history rather than a textile background I should explain that to create these vessels Denise uses drifts of wool fibres (and possibly other inclusions), laid out in careful order and then manipulated by hand using soap and water to create a thick felted mat shaped in the desired form. Shrinkage during this process can be extreme, hence the need for additional studio space.

A wide range of materials can be found in Denise’s work. The dress on the right includes recycled tyvek packaging taken from surgical equipment. The main technique used here is knitting, which has been combined with other processes to achieve the desired result.

Denise is inspired by the Australian landscape, most evidently in her paintings. She uses a travel sketchbook to capture colours as much as sketches. Denise showed me a commissioned wall piece in its final stages – based on the view towards the sea from the client’s home, but not trying to be a literal representation. It is an emotional response to the inspiration – “how could I translate that…?” She generally works quickly and intensely, with a clear image in her mind of the outcome, always pushing herself further.

When describing her work Denise avoids the well-worn art / craft debate. She wants to be part of the general scene, not in any way limited. For her textiles are part of art mainstream. She creates paintings and vessels. She enters the same shows and prizes as Peter, and is enjoying growing success.

The combination
While each artist maintains a healthy, active, independent artistic practice, as a team they become truly formidable. The combination of a shared studio and home allows them to support, encourage and critique each other.

griffen_lithgowOccasionally they collaborate, as in the work shown here.

They bounce off each other, sharing ideas and techniques but each in a way that suits their individual work. For example both take photographs of work in progress as well as when completed. Denise may use progress photos in an article, while Peter may want to re-install a shape previously blocked out, adding to the layers and embedded richness. In our conversation Denise grabbed that idea to explain her layering of stitch. She has learnt from Peter to keep going, to work through challenges and get a result.

In such an open, shared space it is also important that each respects when the other needs space and quiet to work in their own way. For example Denise becomes absorbed when laying out fibre for felt. She needs to be at peace and can’t talk.

Both artists are committed to creating opportunities for themselves and each other. Peter has written and published a book on his work. They open their studio / home to visitors – there’s an open day coming up on 8th/9th March (see http://www.leichhardt.nsw.gov.au/Community/Arts-and-Culture/Current-Arts-and-Culture-Projects/LOST for details). They go to opening nights both to see and to network. It’s easy to get so focused on practice that one forgets the need to market and sell to maintain that practice. Working together Denise and Peter multiply the impact of their efforts. I really appreciate the time and support they have given me for this exercise.

All photographs (other than my snaps of the artists and the lower studio) are copyright of the artists and used with their kind permission.

Resources
ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (2009) “Desert Dauber” On Landline [online] Available from http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2008/s2670983.htm (Accessed 21-Feb-2014)

Denise’s website: www.deniselithgow.com/

Griffen, P. (2011) in and out of abstraction Sydney: la Fabrique.

Peter’s website: www.petergriffen.com/

Peter on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/griffenart

UA1-WA:P3-p4-Exercise: Visit an artist’s studio
Understanding Art 1 – Western Art.
Part three: Modern art and still life
Project four: Still life after 1900
Exercise: Visit an artist’s studio

UA1-WA:P3-p4-Exercise: Annotation of a still life by Braque

This exercise asks for an annotation of a Cubist still life. I have chosen Glass of absinthe by Georges Braque. It was painted by one of the leaders of Cubism at a critical time in the movement’s evolution – and it is in “my” gallery, the Art Gallery of New South Wales (AGNSW).

Georges Braque Glass of absinth

Georges Braque
Glass of absinthe
1911 Oil on canvas
www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/collection/works/410.1997/


Description

This is a small work, 37.0 x 28.7 cm. My photograph above is very muddy in colour – see www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/collection/works/410.1997/ for a much better image. The original is light, fresh and sparkling. The palette is black, white and an ochre yellow, mixed to create grays and green, and with the buff of the canvas visible in large areas. There are no shadows, no single light source, no single point perspective, no foreground and background, no easily recognisable and carefully modeled objects, and the objects that can be detected are distributed across the picture.

braque_02My previous approach to a cubist work has often been to treat it like a “Where’s Wally” puzzle, taking hints from the title and trying to identify objects. Here I found a stemmed glass in the top right quadrant (outlined in mid-blue in the little sketch), the absinth spoon resting on the lip (outlined in pink). Sections of the glass seem to be repeated – in the centre another bowl, then shown in paler blue running from left up to the right perhaps the base and stem. I’ve also highlighted a line which could be seen as a larger version of the bowl, based on the angle and the colouring to its right. Below the glass is a bunch of grapes.

braque_03Unlike most still life paintings there is no sign of a table or other support. There appear to be some steps (shown in yellow), but there is no sense of depth. Instead there is a scaffolding of lines (highlighted green) – verticals, (nearly) horizontals and diagonals. It looks as if the planes formed could slide and shear like rock strata, especially those repeated slopes in the lower part of the image, but they are braced and supported by the verticals.braque_04 Curves (highlighted in red in the thumbnail) create some contrast and life.

braque_05The colour mixing and brushwork is delicate and meticulous. In this detail of the area just left and up of centre shows short square brushstrokes of relatively thick paint in streaky mixes of white, gray and black. This is the lightest area of the picture and it glows and fizzes. The volume of the glass is suggested, but no depth. You can see here that this “liquid” area flows outside the main glass to the longer diagonal, which is why I suggested above a larger repeat of the bowl.

braque_06Colours are more blended in the grapes. In the actual painting there is a subdued green, perhaps a mix of the black and ochre. There is a variety of brushwork, following the shape and suggesting the volume of the grapes, progressing to more scrubby, suggestive marks towards the bottom of the canvas.

Interpretation
Braque said “In the still-life you have a tactile, I might almost say a manual space … This answered to the hankering I have always had to touch things and not merely see them. It was this space that particularly attracted me, for this was the first concern of Cubism, this investigation of space… In tactile space you measure the distance separating you from the object, whereas in visual space you measure the distance separating things from each other” (Braque, [n.d.] a). The objects in the picture – glass, spoon, grapes… – are not the subject. It is the space between the objects, and between them and the painter, which was of interest. It was space without distance, dealing with painting on a two-dimensional surface. Another way of viewing this is given by Terence Maloon: “Space in these works is not a pre-existing, neutral container, indifferent to its contents, but is generated by the work’s formal components, arising from the relationship of parts, created by their rapports” (Maloon, 2010, p. 218).

Many of the familiar signifiers of Cubism derive from this focus on space, including the fragmentation and the palette.

The multiple viewpoints and shattering of the objects allowed Braque to get close to them: “Fragmentation helped me to establish space and movement in space” (Braque, [n.d.] b). Leymarie (1988, p. 11) explains that the decomposition of solid forms did not destroy but rather exposed the internal forms, rearranged into complex overlapping planes in the picture. It may seem to the viewer unnatural, but that is an almost inevitable result of Braque’s and Picasso’s exploration. As Schulz-Hoffman explains, “their point of departure was the recognition of the essential difference between art and nature and the resultant thesis that each constituted a different form of reality” (Schulz-Hoffman, 1988, p. 20).

Colour is not the colour of the original objects, nor is it used describe light as the Impressionists did. It is used to describe the simplified geometrical forms and is almost monochromatic. Braque “felt colour would ‘trouble’ the new spatial sensations” (Golding, 1990, p. 11). This was a dramatic change to his earlier work as a Fauve (see 8-Dec-2013).

Although the canvas of my focus picture is rectangular the composition within it is oval. Another still life by Braque with largely the same objects is actually oval – The Glass of Absinthe, c. 1910-1911, in the collection of the National Gallery of Canada – see www.gallery.ca/en/see/collections/artwork.php?mkey=15905. Slightly smaller and it seems slightly earlier than the AGNSW picture, it appears to be darker and more densely painted. Based on the small web image it appears to be a simpler composition, with less complex and less clearly defined planes, possibly reflecting slightly different stages of development in a period of intense work. It would be interesting to see the two works side by side.

A sizable portion of Cubist works appears to be oval in composition or actual canvas. Leymarie suggests “the oval formats … counteract the dispersion by the angles of rectangular supports and to create a more compact surface …” (Leymarie, 1988, p. 12). Schulz-Hoffman offers a number of alternative explanations, including “the rectangle and square delimit a pictorial field that is firmly structured in all directions, while the oval leaves the edge comparatively fluid and indefinite; the pictorial field does not correspond to the habitul way of seeing nor to the notion of a picture as a view through a window” (Schulz-Hoffman, 1988, p. 22).

Landscape with houses Georges Braque Winter 1908-1909 oil on canvas 65.5 x 54.0 cm

Georges Braque
Landscape with houses
Winter 1908-1909 oil on canvas 65.5 x 54.0 cm

Still life offered an ideal way of examining space. It is enclosed, easier to define and encompass than in say a landscape. Multiple viewpoints are readily obtained and proximity effectively removes perspective. At AGNSW another painting by Braque provides an interesting contrast.

I previously showed this image 31-Oct-2013 when I considered its relationship to Landscape with stag by Gustave Courbet, focusing on its angularity and repetition of triangular forms, sense of being closed in, and palette. Virtually the same points link to Braque’s still life. The absence of a skyline, closing in the landscape, assists that flattening effect – space without depth. The trees and buildings are simplified to geometric forms, and although not yet fragmented they have begun to shift in space to create a unified pictorial field in the compressed space.

Both works by Braque shown here show the influence of Cézanne (see 30-Jan-2014). There is the even brushstroke unifying elements (much more apparent in the landscape than the still life). There are multiple points of view, distortion of space, the importance of the relationships between objects and the process of discovery, an incremental development while painting. Braque said “The [Renaissance] painters confused composition with staging. It was opera and stage directing. But with Cézanne composition is really painting, it is thought out” (Braque, [n.d.] c)

Evaluation

Glass of absinthe was painted during a critical period of artistic exploration by Braque and Picasso. In this early stage of Cubism, Analytic Cubism, objects were used to explore space. Later, in what is now known as Synthetic Cubism, space was discovered or created using techniques such as strips of paper, which then suggested objects that could be inserted. Cubist works built on the legacy of Cézanne in questioning the hard-won skills of naturalistic representation and in finding new ways of approaching the two dimensional surface of a painting. Such concerns have continued to attract artists, for example I find it interesting to look back at my notes on Jackson Pollock’s Blue Poles (see 26-Dec-2013) regarding the focus on the surface of the painting among abstract expressionists and the introduction of forms, a hierarchy, in the Poles.

Both Braque and Picasso drew back from pure abstraction. Cubism broke barriers as a conceptual approach, but did not become a viable long-term style. However the discoveries and advances made in this period were critical in later developments of 20th century art.

A sidenote: While researching for this annotation I came across Picasso’s 1914 The Absinthe Glass – see for example www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/04/09/arts/design/met-cubist.html?_r=1&#/#cover. This sculpture is significant in a number of ways, including the inclusion of an actual absinthe spoon making it one of the earliest art works to include an actual object, and in six casts being made – each individually painted by Picasso and so both a multiple and unique.

References

Braque ([n.d.] a) Cited Mullins, E. (1968) The Art of Georges Braque New York: Harry N. Abrams Inc, p. 41

Braque ([n.d.] b) Cited Mullins, E. (1968) The Art of Georges Braque New York: Harry N. Abrams Inc, p. 55

Braque ([n.d.] c) Cited in Lieberman, A. (1960) The artist in his studio London: Thames & Hudson, p.136

Golding, J. (1990) “Braque and the space of still life” In South Bank Centre (1990) Braque: Still lifes and interiors. London: South Bank Centre Publications, pp. 9 – 26.

Leymarie, J. (1988) Georges Braque New York: Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum.

Maloon, T. (2010) Paths to abstraction 1867 – 1917 Sydney: Art Gallery of New South Wales

Schulz-Hoffman, C. (1988) “The Cubist Phase” In Leymarie, J. (1988) Georges Braque New York: Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, pp. 19-24.

UA1-WA:P3-p4-Exercise: Annotation of a still life by Braque
Understanding Art 1 – Western Art.
Part three: Modern art and still life
Project four: Still life after 1900
Exercise: Annotate a Cubist still life

UA1-WA:P3-p4-Research Point: Pop Art and still life

Still life
“A painting of inanimate objects” (Lucie-Smith, 2003, p. 205).
“A representation of such inanimate objects as flowers, fruit, dead animals or household articles” (Honour and Fleming, 2009, p. 948)

What are the criteria for “still life”? Lucie-Smith gives two – a painting, and inanimate objects. Honour and Fleming is a little more open with “representation” (perhaps allowing in the George Baldessin sculpture I showed recently – see 31-Jan-2014) and the brief list of example objects is suggestive of scale and possibly a certain domestic ordinariness. At least a certain degree of representation is required, not pure abstraction. Neither definition mentions the artist’s purpose.

When researching the iconography of still life (see 11-Jan-2014) I found vanitas paintings, reflecting on the brevity of life, and pronkstilleven paintings, a celebration of plenty and the exotic. Both forms were a display of the technical skill of the artist and of the wealth and possibly piety of the prosperous citizens of a great trading nation.

Cézanne’s still life (see 30-Jan-2014) explored the nature of painting, emphasising the canvas surface and distorting forms and space. I’m currently working on an annotation of a Cubist still life, which goes further as suggested by Braque’s statement “The subject is not the object; it is the new unity, the lyricism which stems completely from the means employed” (Braque, [n.d.]). Here the ‘inanimate object’ is just a pretext for the painting.

Aspects of Pop Art

  • Appropriation. For example Roy Lichtenstein followed “a sophisticated process of image selection, reinterpretation and reissue” (Babington, 2012, p. 17)
  • Slick
  • A reaction against abstract expressionism and the individual gestures/marks of the heroic artist.
  • Reintroduction of the figurative
  • Often mechanically produced in multiples
  • Collision or confrontation of high and low art, the ordinary/popular and avant garde.
  • Often uses collage or screen printing

Another list, from Richard Hamilton in 1957:

  • Popular (designed for a mass audience)
  • Transient (short term solution)
  • Expendable (easily forgotten)
  • Low cost
  • Mass produced
  • Young (aimed at youth)
  • Witty
  • Sexy
  • Gimmicky
  • Glamrous
  • Big business

Pop Art responded to the mass consumerism and popular culture of its time.

Probably the most widely known Pop Art work that could be regarded as still life are Andy Warhol’s images of soup cans (for example see http://nga.gov.au/warhol/details/126133.cfm). I saw two of these in Canberra last year – images of ordinary household items reproduced using commercial techniques, but at a monumental scale and using repetition to generate impact and force. The rows of soup on supermarket shelves, a quick something for supper, become a Statement, a reflection of and a commentary on modern life. The choice of subject was suggested by a gallery owner, Muriel Latow, and the work gained Warhol the “instant notoriety” he craved (Kinsman, 2003). A very humble inanimate object has been represented on a very large scale (historically not used for still life) using techniques that deliberately downplay the touch of the artist’s hand. It ticks all the boxes to be regarded as a still life, while at the same time challenging the traditional qualities of an artwork.

For this Research Point I have chosen to focus on the work of Roy Lichtenstein, as I had the opportunity to many of his works at the Roy Lichtenstein
Pop Remix
exhibition at the NGA (see http://nga.gov.au/Lichtenstein/).

Still life with windmill (1974) (http://artsearch.nga.gov.au/Detail.cfm?IRN=113451) is from the Six still lifes series (another from the series can be seen at the Tate – https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/lichtenstein-still-life-with-portrait-from-six-still-lifes-p77053). This clearly references traditional “old master” paintings. Fruit and jugs are arranged on a table top, a local view can be seen through a door or window – not so different to the work I studied by Laurens Craen (see 13-July-2014). However surface planes are flattened, detail is removed, colours simplified and strong. There are 99 other copies in the edition. It is slightly larger than the Craen work. While clearly a modern work there is no doubt it is a still life.

Kitchen range (1961-62) http://nga.gov.au/international/catalogue/Detail.cfm?IRN=115724 also shows food items arranged in a domestic setting – in this instance a kitchen stove. It is painted, oil on canvas – traditional. The palette has been reduced to an acid yellow and a violet blue on white. The stove and its contents are placed on the canvas with no further elaboration. Lichtenstein said “In these objects … there is an anti-Cubist composition. You pick an object and put it on a blank ground. I was interested in non-Cubist composition. The idea is contrary to the major direction of art since the early Renaissance which has more and more symbolised the integration of ‘figure’ and ‘ground'” (Lichtenstein, 1967). This work can be seen as a representation of inanimate household articles and the artist’s intentions remain within the canon of western art. I have no difficulty categorising this as a still life.

I am more ambivalent about works in the Mirror series – for example Mirror #6 (1972) http://artsearch.nga.gov.au/Detail.cfm?IRN=102771. It is a representation of an inanimate household object. Babington suggests that in this series Lichtenstein was “exploring in full the conceptual and formal concerns posed by compositions that meld abstraction and representation” (Babington, p. 45). Lichtenstein said of these works “There is no really convincing way to portray a mirror, because a mirror simply reflects what’s in front of it… I try to represent reflections of various things and to make a kind of geometrical painting, one that could possibly be thought of as a mirror, and to continue the idea of a painting as an object” (Lichtenstein, 1995). The subject here is not really the object, just as it wasn’t for Braque. However the concerns of the artist remain within the canon even as his techniques continue to test the boundaries. If there is an element of doubt here, it is answered in Before the Mirror (1975) http://artsearch.nga.gov.au/Detail.cfm?IRN=70412. Here traditional elements of a still life, a lemon and a glass, are reintroduced. I suggest the series is confirmed as comprising still life works.

Crak! (1963-64) http://artsearch.nga.gov.au/Detail.cfm?IRN=10456 shows a female resistance fighter firing her gun. What has this to do with still life? It is an appropriation of an illustration in a comic book, something that would have been a household item in the 1960s. It’s a representation, a lithograph, of a drawing. In that sense the object is not a portrait of a woman firing a gun, it’s a DC Comics illustration. Lichtenstein said “… it’s like a Western version of Oriental writing or scrolls … the Bayeux tapestry or something” (Lichtenstein, [n.d.]). Although one could argue that the image is a representation of an inanimate object I think this would be a distortion of the artist’s intention and not justifiable.

I believe many of Lichtenstein’s works can be regarded as within the still life genre. How helpful or misleading such labels are is beyond the scope of this post.

References

Babington, J. (2012) Roy Lichtenstein: Pop remix. Canberra: NGA Publishing National Gallery of Australia.

Braque, G. ([n.d.]) Cited in Honour, H. and Fleming, J. (2009) A World History of Art (revised 7th edition). London: Laurence King, p. 785.

Hamilton, R. (1957) ‘Letter to Peter and Alison Smithson’, Cited in Babington, J. (2012) Roy Lichtenstein: Pop remix. Canberra: NGA Publishing National Gallery of Australia, p. 16.

Honour, H. and Fleming, J. (2009) A World History of Art (revised 7th edition). London: Laurence King.

Kinsman, J. (2003) Curator’s essay: afterimage: Screenprints of Andy Warhol. Canberra: National Gallery of Australia. [online] Available from http://nga.gov.au/warhol/Kinsman.cfm (Accessed 7-Feb-2014)

Lichtenstein, R. ([n.d.]) Cited in Waldman, D. (1971) Roy Lichtenstein. London: Thames and Hudson, p. 28, Cited in Babington, J. (2012) Roy Lichtenstein: Pop remix. Canberra: NGA Publishing National Gallery of Australia, p. 29.

Lichtenstein, R. (1967) in John Coplans, ‘Talking with Roy Lichtenstein’, Artforum, vol. 5, no. 9, May 1967, pp.34-9, p.34, Cited in National Gallery of Australia Catalogue ([n.d.]) Roy LICHTENSTEIN: Kitchen range [Kitchen stove] 1961-62 [online] Available at http://nga.gov.au/international/catalogue/Detail.cfm?IRN=115724
(Accessed 7-Feb-2014)

Lichtenstein, R. (1995) ‘A review of my work since 1961 – a slide presentation’ lecture delivered 11 November 1995, Cited in Babington, J. (2012) Roy Lichtenstein: Pop remix. Canberra: NGA Publishing National Gallery of Australia, p. 47.

Lucie-Smith, E. (2003) The Thames & Hudson Dictionary of Art Terms (New edition). London: Thames & Hudson.

UA1-WA:P3-p4-Research Point: Pop Art still life
Understanding Art 1 – Western Art.
Part three: Modern art and still life
Project four: Still life after 1900
Research Point: Pop Art still life

UA1-WA:P3-p4-Exercise: Notes about still life

The course notes ask for comments on anything I found particularly interesting or surprising about this genre.

Generalising (since of course there are always individual exceptions), I love the human scale and interest, the sense of the person. The artist has chosen this particular group of objects to observe carefully, to spend time with. There’s often a meditative feel, giving a moment to stop rushing about and to see what is around us all the time.

Given what I saw in Cézanne (see 30-Jan-2014), still life also gives a lot of scope to bring in theory, to experiment. In a sense it is the most obvious non-abstract form which reduces the importance of the subject of the painting – a key element in the movement towards abstraction. In that light still life was a bridge to many the developments of the twentieth century, but it remains an important area of work in its own right.

I want to show a few still life works I’ve seen in recent months and found particularly interesting.

Matthew Smith Jugs against vermillion background

Matthew Smith
Jugs against vermillion background
1936 – 30. Oil on canvas
www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/collection/works/27.1992/

This painting is just pure excitement. That incredible strong colour! And to put that little strip of green top centre!! The table top is tilted and unsupported, there are red shadows but not for the blue jug. ‘Most’ still life pictures are their own little world, but the one I looked at by Cézanne showed a little of the studio around him, and here Smith shows just part of a nude woman. Smith plays with the seen and unseen, and with space – is that a mirror frame at the back, suggesting depth and a wall? In person the direction of brush strokes and the paint texture is very important. The most surprising thing in viewing this picture is the balance. There is so much information and action on the right, and on the left… I’m not sure how well it shows in the photograph, but that red on the right is so intense, so solid, while the red on the right hand side is just a bit darker, not quite so saturated – and it works.

Giorgio Morandi Still life

Giorgio Morandi
Still life
1957. Oil on canvas
www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/collection/works/431.1997/

This work by Morandi is such a contrast, but once again colour is so important. I don’t know if it was the artist’s choice or later framing (I notice it’s not included in the photo on the gallery’s website), but that little surround of orange brings a glow and life to the painting and really emphasizes that patch of orange inside. This work feels deeply contemplative, austere and refined. That division line – the edge of the table? – is quite high, and doesn’t seem to quite line up from side to side, while in the centre lines on the largest jug/bottle almost continue it. There is careful, subtle shading, perhaps only one highlight. Colours are subdued, but still give me a sense of richness. It looks timeless.

John Brack The Breakfast Table

John Brack
The Breakfast Table
1958. Oil on canvas
www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/collection/works/193.2013/

The colour and patterning of this work draws you across the room. The thin vertical format of the picture combines with the wobbly vertical trail of the knives and the long shadows of the glassware, and is held in place by just a couple of strong horizontals at the top. The table is so colourful – that amazing yellow, even more amazing with the spots of colour from the jam jars. I like the sly little glimpse of the black and white floor, linking to the black and white which I think is reflections in the window. The scene is domestic and lively and energetic – I can imagine the family who just shared a noisy breakfast and are now racing off to their busy days.

John Bokor Kitchen table

John Bokor
Kitchen table
2011. Pencil, gesso wash on thick textured white paper (oil paper)
www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/collection/works/362.2012.3/

Another exciting table! This feels much more spontaneous, unlike the careful compositions of most still life. The layers of wash and drawing create movement and life and urgency. Bokor keeps building and constructing layer upon layer. This drawing and others in the series feel fresh and young and invigorating.

The multiple lines and layers made me think of pentimenti (traces of alteration) in older works where the artist may have changed his/her mind, then the multiple lines in Cézanne’s work where he kept seeing slightly different parts of an object, and the tail of the bull in Matisse’s L’Enlevement d’Europe (see http://artsearch.nga.gov.au/Detail.cfm?IRN=75935) that I wanted in my bedroom in the Finding Affinities exercise (see 9-Dec-2013). I haven’t got to the end of this train of thought, but it feels like something I want to explore further.

Emma White Still life with objects

Emma White
Still life with objects
2011. Archival inkjet print
www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/collection/works/91.2012/

This is a truly dreadful photo, taken in low light with lots of reflections in the glass, so please, Please, PLEASE click on the link below the photo or the photo itself to go to the gallery website. This is another recent and exciting work exploring the world of still life today. The artist’s methods and materials are right up to date and I love the way this still life is right back on the edge of abstraction.

George Baldessin Pear - version number 2

George Baldessin
Pear – version number 2
1973. Sculpture, corten steel: 7 forms
artsearch.nga.gov.au/Detail.cfm?IRN=45188

I saw this work by George Baldessin when I visited Canberra late last year. Cézanne played with the artificiality of a three dimensional form on a two dimensional canvas. Here the fruit is once again three dimensional – but at huge scale, rigid and hard, so unlike a juicy, ripe, easily bruised pear. It’s wonderful to walk up to and around what seems like a classic still life composition.

20140120_posterI’m continuing my personal attempts with still life. I like this best of what I’ve done so far. I like some of the textures created by the posterizing of the image. I think perhaps it needs some other little thing with a hard reflection like the ginger beer bottle – maybe a little hard round reflective shape catching the light just in front of the deeply shadowed side of the bowl. You can see more of my struggles in my sketchbook (click here).

UA1-WA:P3-p4-Exercise: Notes about still life
Understanding Art 1 – Western Art.
Part three: Modern art and still life
Project four: Still life after 1900
Exercise: Notes about still life

UA1-WA:P3-p4-Exercise: Annotation of a still life painting by Cézanne

My selection of works to focus on in course exercises has often been driven by what is reasonably available for me to view in person – and there are no van Gogh or Cézanne still life paintings near by.

Samuel John Peploe Still life: apples and jar circa 1912-circa 1916

Samuel John Peploe
Still life: apples and jar
circa 1912-circa 1916
www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/collection/works/8049/

I considered this painting by Samuel Peploe at the Art Gallery of New South Wales (AGNSW) – the gallery website describes Peploe as “typical of the many British artists who succumbed to the magnetism of Cezanne in the early part of the twentieth century”. However Cézanne’s work seems to be so pivotal, so pervasive in its influence on twentieth century artists, that I want to try to come to grips with him directly. There’s also a personal twist. When I finished school I followed many Aussies, going on a long working holiday around Europe. It included a couple of months working in Provence, nearest village Ventabren, nearest town Aix en Provence (birthplace and often home of Cézanne). That’s where I “discovered” Cézanne, and many of his landscapes take me back to late summer walks around that countryside, dizzy on the heady fumes of wilds herbs previously only known dried up in little bottles.

So I included a little of Cézanne when thinking about artists’ letters (20-Jan-2014), will look at a still life here, and in a later exercise will attempt to copy a Cézanne landscape which generally is available to see at AGNSW.

All of this means I have been forced onto books and the internet for an image from which to work. To select a specific work I did an image search for still life paintings by Cézanne and chose the one which seemed to me most extreme in its fracturing and deformation of space – Still life with Plaster Cupid, circa 1894, in the collection of The Courtauld Gallery, London (see http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk/images/gallery/872882ac.html).

Paul Cezanne Still life with plaster cupid

Paul Cézanne
Still life with plaster cupid (1895)
Image source: www.wikipaintings.org/en/paul-cezanne/still-life-with-plaster-cupid-1895 (public domain)

Description
cezanne_plasterOn the right is my rough sketch of the painting, colour-coded to assist following my notes.

The dominating central figure is a plaster statue of cupid, standing on a table top. Cupid’s right hip is at the very middle of the picture, and a vertical centre line runs down the length of his body. It is overall the lightest in value area of the painting (together with a small plate on the table). The top part of his body is mainly left of centre, balanced by the bottom part of his body on the right. However this initial visual impression of balance is lost. Cupid’s body is in motion, twisting, and the painting seems to turn around him.

We seem to be looking just slightly down at cupid’s head, but looking from a much higher vantage point at his feet and base. The space around is similarly distorted and ambiguous. The area to the right seems to be the floor, but it rises up the painting as if a wall. Why isn’t that apple near the top rolling down? There is a series of canvases stacked (or hung), outlined in pinks and purples in my sketch, but the space in the picture seems too shallow for them to fit. And that rear/high apple again – it’s larger than those near the front. For the depth and perspective and relative size to make sense it should be a watermelon! There are some shadows, but they don’t quite work either. Light seems to hit cupid directly on his right side, the shadow from his right foot goes across the table and disappears. Fruit shadows are absent or go in other directions. The blue cloth under the plate on the table goes off to the left where it becomes part of one of the stacked canvas. Part of the onion on the left of the table (green in my sketch) seems to form part of the lower edge of that same canvas, while the top becomes a chair leg within it. There are straight lines going in all sorts of directions, none quite parallel. Curves are repeated everywhere – in yellow on my sketch the belly of cupid, the statue base of cupid and the base of another statue shown in one of the internal canvases; in orange all those apples, which as a whole form a large U curve. I feel as if I’m watching a juggler – everything in motion, circling and twisting and turning, everything is at risk… but somehow it is balanced, controlled, not quite falling.

There are circles in the colours too, revolving around the cupid and palely reflected in his opalescent form. Yellows go from the apples on canvas/chair at the left, swoop down across the table, up to the rear canvas then just little touches on the painting behind cupid to complete the circle. While there seem to touches of a jade-like green across the picture, a more yellow green is carried around by apples and onion tops. There aren’t large areas of dark in the picture. What there is mainly contained behind the rough curve across the painting, formed by the bases of the canvases and cupid’s left thigh.

I wish I could see the work in person, to examine brushstrokes and any variations in the thickness and coverage of paint. However in the photos I see multiple outlines of shapes creating volume and that ambiguity of point of view; I think I see areas of uncovered canvas, bringing light and texture, and reinforcing the artificial nature of the picture; and I can’t really tell if he used the technique he evolved – “a diagonal hatching stroke that – evenly applied throughout the picture, regardless of the texture or nature of the object – unified the various pictorial elements in a tightly interlocking structure” (Dean, 1991, p. 16).

Interpretation

One can examine the symbols and iconography in this painting as in other still life works. Shapiro notes in the combination of apples, Cupid, and the suffering, tortured man (in the painting top right – showing a statue of a flayed slave) a connection to the erotic. Apples and onions contrast in form and flavour, just as the sexes contrast. (Shapiro, 1968, p.11). Shapiro goes on to write a lot more about still life in general, and in Cézanne’s work in particular. Relevant to one of my original reasons for choosing this picture, Cézanne’s influence on later painters, is the conclusion: “the view of the mature Cézanne as an artist who saw in the objects he painted only a plastic problem, disregarding or even neutralizing their meaning or natural charm, is not borne out then altogether by his practice or his comment in letters and conversation” (Shapiro, 1968, p. 28).

An alternative interpretation focuses on philosophy and on the nature of a painting as thing itself. Spigler (2009) “argue[s] that ideas of formation and animation, both in terms of objects of art and human beings, affected [Cézanne’s] own representation of statuary and were tied to his understanding of the philosophies of sensitivity and sensibility—a discourse deeply entwined in his own self-presentation and self-understanding as an artist”.

Spigler notes the additive process of painting, shown in the darker area around the plaster cupid formed as paint is repeatedly applied to the background to more clearly define the statue. However the figure also comes from the sculptural taking away of material, as Michelangelo is said to have carved marble to show the figure within. In the painted cupid the structural support of the statue has been merged visually and the figure is apparently stepping out into full realisation. The canvas at the top of the picture repeats these ideas – the painting shown is of a statue then believed to be by Michelangelo, showing a flayed slave. The original sculpture used a subtractive process to expose the figure, and the figure itself had been flayed – skin removed – to expose the muscles and flesh within. Next the additive process of painting the original canvas created an image of the statue, and finally in the subject painting a further additive process seems to have returned skin and full form.

Further complicating these combinations and tensions of additive and subtractive process, Spiegler suggests the upper part of the cupid, torso and most of the head, fits within the canvas behind it. There is a “division of the vertical figure into two zones of becoming: the upper zone from genitals to crown figures animation as a result of some additive process like painting; the lower zone reflects on the liberation of life by subtracting the mute matter in which it is encased”.

All of these processes also throw into question the nature of two and three dimensional space. They combine to show the statue coming into being – stepping into three dimensions – and yet still locked in the two dimensional picture, that artificial space. The final step is made by ourselves as viewer, bringing the figure into being.

Really I’m not sure that the above is valid even as a partial representation of Spigler’s argument(s). I can’t pretend to understand all or most of the points made by him, so direct you to the link in the References section for full information. However I think he does attribute significant conscious philosophical and theoretical concerns to Cézanne in his painting. It could be that a hugely gifted painter could keep all these ideas front of mind and express them in his work, but it seems to me that a part may be a rationalisation after the event.

This work and others by Cézanne have an importance beyond themselves in the history of modern art. Writing of my focus work Dempsey (2010, p.45) explains “the cupid is presented both frontally and from above: the third dimension is not created by traditional means of perspective and foreshortening but by changes in colour, which both unify the surface and signal depth, a radical shift in pictorial technique”. I’ve noted about the overall unity of colour in the surface, but I find it difficult to identify the depth referred to by Dempsey. The head and torso of the cupid appear closest to me, but beyond that is confusion. The lightest colouring, which I would expect to be closest, is towards the top right – which my mind tells me should be furthest away.

Evaluation

While reading for this analysis I have found a number of passages that have helped my overall understanding of Cézanne’s work and importance.

“There is a truth which is the painting, not the subject, not the object, but the single identity of the painting which is complete as itself – or as complete as it exists undefiled at any stage in its growth” (Copplestone, 1998, p.54). The canvas and the paint were reality, not anything depicted.

“All of Cézanne’s still-lives describe ordinary objects, that are part of everyday life. Their very simplicity brings out by contrast the plastic quality of the forms and the play of light on the objects, which is the real theme of the picture. Cézanne abandons the traditional laws of perspective and constructs an ideal space which each object helps to determine” (my emphasis) (Adhémar, 1983, p. 24). Again, Cézanne carefully observes nature, but in constructing the painting he is not trying to represent the objects present in a narrow, literal way – as a group or individually.

“[Cézanne] realized that the eye takes in a scene both consecutively and simultaneously, and in his work the single perspective gives way to a shifting view, acknowledging that perspective changes as the eyes and head move, and that objects seen together participate in each other’s existence” (Dempsey, 2010, p.45).

That seems to suggest an intellectual concept and prior decision, which is a little different to another explanation which seems to focus more on a working method leading the result. “[Cézanne] worked on this picture over a long period of time, and he himself moved around it. He has pieced together his image by painting what he saw from these changing viewpoints. Little by little he has built up a composite image of the figure that shows more than could be seen from one fixed position.” (Cumming, [n.d.]) The same explanation can be used for the variable shadow. Areas of the picture were painted at different times under different lighting conditions. Each area shows what was observed at the time it was painted. The painting goes beyond three dimensions to show the passing of time.

How much of this was Cézanne’s intention and how much are ideas triggered in those examining his works? A rhetorical question – I don’t believe a definitive answer exists. As part of his discussion Spigler (2009) notes the difficulties of identifying the nineteenth-century understanding of sensibility and sensation – “Due to the great number of discourses using these terms, the ideas associated with them were susceptible to extreme slippage”. Dean suggests “even during Cézanne’s lifetime, fellow artists found ideas in his art that the painter himself did not intend” (Dean, 1991, p. 5). If ideas slipped and changed and merged at the time, how much more slippage must there be in over a century. Cézanne brings together his knowledge of art history (the cupid plaster cast and the flayed slave sculpture, thought at the time to be by Puget and Michelangelo respectively); colour theory (advancing and receding colours to create or negate space and volume); contemporary techniques (the tache and brushmarks); philosophy about the nature of art (the ‘real’ is the canvas and paint)… Dean explains “in a sense, his appeal to so many and various artists is precisely because of this eclectic approach: there is something here for everyone” (Dean, 1991, p.5).

It seems to me that while they sometimes seem to contradict each other each of these evaluations, and the differing interpretations suggested earlier, builds towards a more complete understanding of Cézanne’s work and its importance. While writing this annotation I’ve had the fanciful idea that it is to an extent analogous to the picture itself – copying little fragments that build up to show multiple views that somehow both distort the picture and show more of it, with the actual thing created being a student ‘paper’.

References

Adhémar, H. (1983) The Jeu de Paume Museum . Paris: Ministère de la Culture : Editions de la réunion des Musées Nationaux.

Copplestone, T. (1998) Paul Cézanne. Kent: Grange Books

Cumming, R. ([n.d.]) Cézanne: Still Life with Plaster Cast The Courtauld Institute of Art Art and Architecture Web Site [on-line] Available from http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk/stories/cumming_cezanne/cumming_cezanne02.html (Accessed 27-Jan-2014)

Dempsey, A. (2010) Styles, schools and movements: The essential encyclopaedic guide to modern art. London: Thames & Hudson

Shapiro, M. (1968) “The apples of Cézanne: An essay on the meaning of still-life” In Modern Art 19th and 20th centuries: selected papers: Meyer Shapiro New York: George Braziller [online] Available from www.ithaca.edu/faculty/wells/201/schapiro2.pdf (Accessed 25-Jan-2014)

Spigler, J. (2009) “Making Matter Make Sense in Cézanne’s Still Lifes with Plaster Cupid” In Nineteenth-Century Art Worldwide: a journal of nineteenth-century visual culture. 8 (1) Spring 2009 [on-line] Available from www.19thc-artworldwide.org/spring09/55-spring09/spring09article/62–making-matter-make-sense-in-cezannes-still-lifes-with-plaster-cupid (Accessed 26-Jan-2014)

UA1-WA:P3-p4-Exercise: Annotation of a still life painting by Cézanne
Understanding Art 1 – Western Art.
Part three: Modern art and still life
Project four: Still life after 1900
Exercise: Annotate a still life painting by Cézanne or van Gogh

UA1-WA:P3-p4-Research Point: Artists’ letters

This Research Point asks about van Gogh’s letters – how his words contribute to or complement viewing his work.

Vincent van Gogh: The Letters is an amazing resource on the Van Gogh Museum website – http://www.vangoghletters.org/vg/. It holds 902 letters to or from van Gogh plus related material. You can see an image of the letter itself, the text and an English translation. There are editorial notes and links to images of particular works mentioned in the letters, plus a very good search engine and extensive cross-linking of material. It is extremely well designed and easy to use. You could get lost in there for days with every moment fascinating.

I used this resource while researching for my annotation of van Gogh’s Head of a peasant (see 25-Nov-2013). I was able to learn more about van Gogh’s intent in his choice of subject, use of colour, and composition in a later painting for which my focus work was a study. Other letters gave me insight into van Gogh’s ambitions in painting generally and about the conditions and concerns of his life such as money worries and plans for future saleable works. The facilities of the website also allowed me to identify related works.

During my own recent experiment with drawing a still life it was interesting to read van Gogh’s words about his work – “a large still life of potatoes — where I’ve tried to get body into it — I mean express the material. Such that they become lumps that have weight and are solid, which you’d feel if they were thrown at you, for instance.” (van Gogh, 1885).

As well as the advantages, there are limitations and dangers in relying too much on an artist’s own words.

For me the most interesting, the greatest art is more than the artist’s intentions. There is space for the viewer to be an active participant, to interpret and find their own meanings. Levels of ambiguity or mystery leave it open for us. As well as the meaning/theme/iconography of the work this could include the nature of the work itself. While researching for the next exercise I found “Even during Cézanne’s lifetime, fellow artists found ideas in his art that the painter himself did not intend” (Dean, p.5). If we are too conscious of the artist’s intentions it could make us miss or self-censor our own response the the art itself.

Doing annotations for this course I am learning to observe the work carefully, and also put it into context – political, artistic… While the artist’s own words should an important part of interpreting a work they must also be read in context – of the life and situation of the artist and of the wider use language and ideas which change over time.

An artist may miss-speak or a translation may be inaccurate. An artist may change their mind, for example in my research on Seurat I found Pissarro writing at one time as a staunch advocate, and a few years later disillusioned and disparaging (see 14-Nov-2013).

Modern artists artists are generally very conscious of self marketing and promotion. I don’t know the extent of such ideas in the past – van Gogh’s letters for example seem very genuine and un-self-conscious. Even so he wanted to gain support, to inspire confidence, to reassure… One can’t necessarily accept what is written at face value.

Finally while it can be fascinating and enlightening to learn more about an artist and their views, it can feed the modern cult of celebrity. Focus can shift to the man, his privations, his personal demons, his intentions, his theories… but in the end, the work’s the thing. True – but I’ve discovered that a book of the letters of Cezanne has recently been published. Irresistible.

References

Dean, C. (1991) Cézanne. London:Phaidon Press

van Gogh, V. (1885) Letter to Theo van Gogh. Nuenen, Sunday, 4 October 1885. [online] Available from http://vangoghletters.org/vg/letters/let533/letter.html (Accessed 19-Jan-2014).

UA1-WA:P3-p4-Research Point: Artists’ letters
Understanding Art 1 – Western Art.
Part three: Modern art and still life
Project four: Still life after 1900
Research Point: Artists’ letters


Instagram

The 3 brothers afterwards.

Calendar of Posts

March 2017
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Archives

Categories