What’s up Winkleman?
January 10th, 2007
Who is the most influential art blogger? Ed Winkleman, of course. I haven’t been following his blog as closely as I would like to, but yesterday I took a look and the title of his recent post Art About Art got me excited. I’ve been working on an essay about this general subject “art about art”, and I wondered if I had been scooped. In fact, there was no connection; Winkleman’s post could have been titled “Art about making art,” how artwork depicting artists “caught in the act” of creation tells us about how artists did what they did. In my own experience this is a fruitful avenue for research, because there is much to be learned about studio practice from old paintings, (how to store brushes in linseed oil, for example, or how the palette was laid out in the 15th century). There is also much to learn from ancient art about the making, painting, and firing of ancient Greek ceramics.
Back to art about art — the concept of depicting art in art opens a lot of possibilities. The imaginary vase painting still life above is an example. I have long been fascinated by Athenian vase painting because of the potential of the vase to act as a “frame” for drawings and paintings on the vase itself. This fascination led me to a long love affair with ceramics and kiln building — that’s for another time though. The painting above is a technical study in how to paint a representation of a vase with oil colors on canvas. The form of the vase is based on studies of a stamnos in a museum in nearby Leiden, while the “red figure painting” is based on a painting on an amphora in the same museum. I studied these ancient objects by drawing in my sketchbook at the museum, then created this fantasy synthesis in my studio.
In fact, I worked out the rough form of the vase together with Hanneke van Oosterhout in a large painting we did together. I made this study to develop the technique for painting the vase before overpainting it in the large painting.
Every blog post should end with a question, right? Okay then, what do you think about Ed Winkleman’s blog? Or, what do you think about “art about art”? Or, what do you think of collaborating on artwork?
…
related post: Art about art and doing a 180
January 10th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Karl,
To what extent is your painting “about” the vase painting? Or about the vase as art? I’m certainly not saying it isn’t, but this strikes me as very different from the kind of art reference that Leslie last posted on, where knowledge of the referenced or depicted art is crucial to the meaning (if I may) of the new artwork. In your picture, does it matter that the vase painting is of a warrior? That he’s looking back? Or is it simply the color and decorative effect that you’re concerned with? Absent any information, I assume all of these may be relevant, but I’m wondering what was the case when you made your painting.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Oh lord, “every blog should end with a question”???? That’s probably why I’m sitting here writing rather than stitching even as the piles of painted fabric grow taller and taller.
I’m reading “Imagination’s Chamber: Artists and Their STudios” by Michael Peppiatt and Alice Bellony-Rewald. It contains, for obvious reasons of chronology, a number of paintings of artists working or inhabiting their studios. I find the paintings using the studio as their subject far more fascinating than the photos — many of these are basically snapshots to record the place rather than artistically worked productions.
There are some exceptions to this: a photo of Pissaro (about 1895) with a large window behind his seated figure and his easel is poignant (no photographer’s name is given and I can’t find this specific photo on the web.)
And another photo from 1892 or 93 by Myra Wiggins which depicts sculptors (all women) in Augustus Saint-Gauden’s class at the Art Students League in NYC is simply wonderful both for its composition and for the sheer scope of activity that’s going on — about 7 artists, all working on a similar male nude athlete who carries a long pole; in the background are other sculpted figures.
Here’s a bad web representation:
http://www.aaa.si.edu/home.cfm/fuseaction/Items.ViewItemImage/DigitalResourceID/5793
I’m wondering if later photos which simply record rather than compose are a function of the time periods involved (earlier photographers trying for a greater artistry in this particular subject matter) or if history simply has saved only the best of the earlier photographs. So there’s a question — and I’m not even a poster…..
January 10th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Steve,
This painting is of an imaginary ancient artwork. In the context of the larger painting, the choice of the figure has contextual importance, but I think that the vase acts as a frame and creates its own meaningful context in this study. Thus, I think the vase stands on its own, literally and aesthetically.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Karl, seems like there are a number of ways that art can be about art, and they’re quite different. Here’s a partial list (for Colin’s enjoyment):
a.) art that contains images of other art
b.) art that engages in philosophical conversations that occur within the art world (art that responds to other art)
c.) art that shows artists in the act of making art
d.) art that depicts or refers to aspects of the artworld (such as galleries, collectors, museum practices, artworld politics, etc.)
e.) art that tries to create its own world without referring to other subject matter
And of course, there can be all kinds of combinations of the above. Plus, some people would say that all art is about art, regardless of whatever else it’s about.
As far as your 3 questions, I’ll wait and respond later to the others when I’ve had a chance to think about them more. They could be 3 totally separate threads. But I will say that EWs blog is the one other art blog I read and participate in regularly. And like this one, it’s the discussion I’m most interested in, more than the actual content of the posts themselves.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I was trying to get you to make a statement using the word “about,” but I think I may paraphrase to say that the painting is, in part, about how a painter deals with a vase as frame. I think it’s interesting that the figure appears to be nearly centered between the handles, just as the vase is within the frame of your painting. By the way, you’ve done well in convincing us the figure is on a curved surface.
January 10th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Karl,
I don’t know much about Winkleman’s blog, but I am new to this world. It certainly looks interesting (great, just what I need, another blog). I think you heard enough from me on art about art, but collaboration is a whole other rich topic. I don’t think I can tackle it at the moment, because it deserves attention.
But I do have questions about the vase study. Maybe similar to Steve, I am wondering what your intent is in this piece. Not being familiar with the particular stammos form of the vase, I read this is a painting of a Greek vase (rather than an invented piece)and figured that must be important to you, that the art historical reference is the most imporant element here. However, when you say you are most interested in how a vase can frame an image, I think I am wrong about your interests. Have you done other paintings of vases with your own images on them? I agree that the idea is fasciniating, as well as taking that idea from its natural 3D world to the world of painting. Or perhaps your true interest is in painting on vases? I know you have aluded to doing ceramics also.
The reason I am asking is that although your post addresses art about art, your interest seem to lie in paintings of/on vases, without necessarily being concened about referring the historical practice of vase painting.
Or maybe I should ask more directly: Is the reference to other art important to you? What role does it serve?
January 10th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
collaboration is a whole other rich topic. I don’t think I can tackle it at the moment, because it deserves attention.
I agree. Collaboration is a huge and very interesting topic. Karl I think I’m going to ignore it here, and ask that you do a separate post on just that.
It deserves a real exploration on its own. I’d be particularly interested in hearing about how it works in the scientific community, which you have experience in, as well as hearing about people’s experiences in collaborating with people in fields other than their own.
January 10th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Art about art about art
Leslie, the topic of the reference to other art is not in itself interesting to me, in then sense of it being a purpose for making a picture. Rather, the thing that we can label “reference to other art” is interesting to me in its content or effect. That’s not an easy distinction to make, so let me say it another way. I don’t say “I want to reference other art in my work.” Rather, I do it because I like what it says to me, which is the same reason I do other things that are not references to other art work.
The Athenian vases as forms are a fascinating topic, whether you want to call pottery an art or a craft. Some of the forms were developed over hundreds or thousands of years (for example, the amphora, a storage vase with two vertical handles). The stamnos on the other hand was a product developed during a particular historical period. Both were often used to store wine.
These vases are not glazed in the normal sense, but painted with a clay slip refined so that the particles are very small. The physical/chemical properties of this slip mean that it can be fired so that it turns black, while the body color of the vase remains red. But the slip is made from the same clay type as the vase itself, so without special firing techniques, the entire vase would be red. This vase is an example of a “red figure” vase, the black being the applied slip. An alternative is “black figure” where the figures were painted black and details etched away with a needle. The black, the fired slip, has a metallic gloss, whereas the red terra-cotta visible in the man has only a slight gloss, like a smooth flowerpot.
I am fascinated by this type of “red figure” painting because of the graceful line drawing and anatomy. It is almost impossible to paint fine lines with clay slip because of the characteristics of the clay (it doesn’t flow from the brush like watercolor). The “red figure” painting was only made possible because of a technical development, a sort of syringe used to extrude the slip on the vase — think of a very fine pastry decorating device.
Although we look at this vase as an ancient form, it represents modern art/craft of its time — a recently developed vase form, the stamnos, the graceful drawing style and the recently discovered line drawing device. On the other hand, the basic pottery techniques and the black/red firing system were already ancient at the time (say 500 B.C.). This fantasy vase thus is an image of an ancient object that itself would have been a combination of the latest trends and even more ancient methods.
Greek vases tell historians a lot about Greek life. They can do this because the ceramic techniques produce a very very durable product. The vases may shatter, but if one can collect the pieces, on can reconstruct the vase. The clay and slip are extremely durable and weatherproof. That is why, although all ancient Greek frescos are lost, as well as other painting types, we still have some idea of how the Greeks drew and painted because of these vases.
The technique of black/red firing was lost for more than two thousand years. It was rediscovered in the 20th century. I have had some success in recreating the effect with my own kiln firings, but to produce a vase like the one in this picture is outside of my ability at this time. Thus this painting also represent a fantasy of what I would like to be able to accomplish at a technical level with respect to colors with real ceramics.
All of these things, and many more I have not mentioned, make the topic of the vase significant to me. That is why I say that I don’t paint it as a simple casual reference. It is more something that I have lived with in a sense. Whether others should need to know any of this background is an open question.
When I paint my real vases, I almost never use ancient designs such as this man with the shield.
January 10th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
June,
What a great photo. History is a filter, that is for certain. The best things get saved, the rest gets tossed. The process can be gradual. Joe makes a mediocre painting. His son stores it in the attic. His grandson throws away the dusty and damaged canvas. That’s why the most important part of painting a permanent picture is painting a good picture, I guess.
January 10th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Steve,
The topic of how the ancient vase painters projected their figures onto the vases is most interesting. As you say, in this vase the figure is constrained to follow the curve of the vase. This was the standard approach for centuries. The later Greek vase paintings attempted to break the form of the vase in a dramatic way.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Karl,
I can’t speak for the others, but I found your comments on the varied aspects of your vase painting fascinating. I think it’s the conjunction of your interest in the technical processes (and your own experience with it), the historical background you have provided, and finally your own processing of these elements through your painting that brings it into another focus for me.
Thanks.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Karl,
From my very limited experience with ceramics I know how hard it is to paint on clay. Of course that is the first thing I was interested in doing! I can see that the vase is an importatn reference for you. Is it an image you are continuing to work with? I am curious to see what you are working on now and how all this sculpture, painting, photography comes together (or doesn’t) in your mind or to the viewer.