Judging an artwork: “who?” versus “how?”
April 16th, 2006The question, “Who made an artwork?” affects the way we judge that artwork. I argue that the question “How did the artist make it?” is of equal relevance. My point is that the focus on “Who was the artist?” is an example of a more general question: “How was the artwork made?”
“Who made it?”
Imagine it were proved that the Mona Lisa on display in the Louvre is a copy of da Vinci’s original. This would be major news. It would not change the work on display, but it would change the way we view it. The value of the picture would be greatly reduced (especially if the original came to light).
This imaginary example demonstrates the obvious, i.e., who made a particular artwork is a critical factor in how we look at the artwork and judge its value. Perhaps this should not be the way art is judged. But in the real world, the importance of authorship is an inescapable reality.
“How was it made?”
Imagine, in another example, that a set of genuine da Vinci drawings were found, studies for the Mona Lisa. Imagine these drawings demonstrated that the Mona Lisa is an imaginary portrait, with the face based on drawings of a fifteen year old boy. This would be major news. From a technical standpoint, it would not be shocking; indeed, it would fit with normal Florentine practice of using male models for female figures. But from an aesthetic standpoint, we would never look at the Mona Lisa the same way. Our appreciation of this painting might not be diminished, but it would inevitably be altered.
We do not so often focus on the question “How was an artwork made?” Part of the reason may be that it is difficult to find answers. But as the above example shows, the answer to this question could be no less important than for the question “Who made it?” The reason, I think, is that the questions are related. “Who made it?” is simply a specific version of “How was it made?”
April 16th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Yes, it’s true that who painted a painting is a sub-set of how the painting is made since one person’s paint strokes and techniques will be different from another person’s similar methods.
But I see a fundamental difference that is based on a non-intelligential argument.
First of all there’s the awe of the rich and famous that is present not only in the art world but is found in the entertainment world, the business world, the academic world, etc. People who are labeled as famous do garner attention which is often far in excess of their accomplishments. And this would extend to deeds (including paintings) performed by the rich and famous.
Relative to how a painting is made, there is the depth of investigation one commits to regarding observations they make. An understanding of the details of the techniques used in the construction of the Golden Gate Bridge will inevitably raise one’s appreciation of the structure, but I’m certain relatively few have spent the time to thoroughly research those details of the bridge. Similarly, taking the effort to raise one’s awareness as to the specifics of how a painting is made will doubtless improve the experience of viewing that painting; but, again only a small portion of the public will have taken the time to do so. It’s not a matter of indifference but rather more of time constraints given the wide variety of interests any one person has. [OK, laziness could possibly be another factor here.]
Other than those educated in the fine arts, generally one depends on museum curators and art critics to highlight the paintings painted by “famous” painters and to point out paintings that have particular unique appearance based on how they were made.
Of course, since ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder,’ an individual can very well treasure a painting which is not widely recognized or officially deemed as being famous.