expresete

The art historical canon as it is perceived today is a collection of revered and honored masterworks of artists from earlier periods in history that is responsible for how people approach and evaluate art today. Standards have been put in place that everyone uses to judge a work or artist’s merit, from the subconscious assumptions made by the average viewer to the fine-groomed reviews written by connoisseurs. This kind of assessment is outdated and has lead to the ignoring of major artistic movements that occur outside of the scholarly realm.

Vasari states in his book, ’Le Vite De piu eccellenti Architetti, Pittori et Scultori Italiari,’ that great art is the expression of individual genius and can be illuminated through biography.[1] There is no doubt that great art is created from individual genius, but by exploring that genius solely through biographies thwarts any notion of thought that would suggest a type of art created by social interactions. Vasari also states that “an artist is gendered, classes, and raced” which ultimately is reduced to an upper class, white male.[2] This is certainly not the case, especially in modern art. Art is for the masses, not solely for those who are “educated” enough to evaluate it or wealthy enough to afford it. For instance, the “omission of whole categories of art and artists has resulted in an unrepresentative and distorting notion of who has contributed to ‘universal’ ideas expressed through creativity and aesthetic effort.”[3] I am of the belief that the art historical canon needs to be redefined in order to incorporate the changing cultures and times of the world that we live in today. The art historical canon should be defined as a compilation of works that are created by artists who work in all mediums who come from different backgrounds, societies, cultures and regions. Gender, age and ethnicity should not play a part, and should not be a factor in considering an artist’s or artwork’s credibility. I am in favor of including graffiti art and street art to the art historical canon because of its ability to reach the masses and reflect the artist’s individuality.

Great art should be more than capable of producing strong reactions in the viewer; it needs to be able to send a message. Graffiti art is that kind of art; it evokes emotion that is steeped in cultural ties and personal truths. It can be personal and public at the same time. It is certainly meant to be interpreted, and whether a deeper meaning exists or not is up to the viewer. Graffiti artists come from all walks of life and can be found in at least five of the seven continents. The way in which graffiti art is created today came out of major urban centers in the middle of the twentieth century but it has been a form of expression for much longer than that. Graffiti dating back to at least Fourth century BCE in ancient Greece was discovered in the Athenian Agora. They began as simple inscriptions of the alphabet and evolved into images and even later, entire murals by the fifth century. The range of subject matter varied from messages, commercial notation to mythology. By the fifth century, obscenities made up the majority of the subject matter.[4]

Graffiti, once dubbed “writing” is now known today as a byproduct of street culture which is seen as a “new global urban culture.” Street culture is everywhere, and spreads whenever it finds new kindred spirits, often regardless of their nationality or political history.”[5] Street culture “never stays localized” because it becomes a universal entity as people travel, exchanging ideas, music and beliefs.[6] Travel and the idealistic notion of exploration are seen as the “essence of street culture.” “Street cultures eventually collide, whether in person or in print.”[7] This theme of universality allows this kind of art to be available to everyone, and serves as public commentary, protest and expression.

Due to its status of being illegal, graffiti is often looked upon as being the product of delinquents and gang activity. While some of these stereotypes hold truth (they are stereotypes for a reason), the majority of graffiti is not created with malicious intent. Graffiti artists strive to create a work of art that speaks to people who pass it on the street, turning boring facades into beautiful and provocative conceptions. This is the primary reason why graffiti is not a part of the art historical canon.

The field of graffiti is heavily dominated by men and this may be explained by the legality factor as well as the connotation that many people give to it (gang activity, punks, and delinquents). This lack of women graffiti artists can be easily remedied by females simply taking interest. There are no pretentious qualifications in this field that keep women from taking an active part in this cultural movement.

Vasari mentions in his book, ‘Le Vite…’ the increasing problem of reproductions and copies threatened the “exclusivity and proprietorial possession of ideas expressed.”[8] Graffiti art is unique in that it is stationary. It can only be copied or reproduced through photographs; therefore its authenticity will always remain true. It is also created with the intention that it will be seen and given notice, and consequently graffiti has no exclusive or possessive qualities that would prevent a person from enjoying it.

Amazing artistry and technique is required for creating a work of graffiti art. It is extremely different than other mediums such as painting and sculpting. Oftentimes stencils are used when creating an image. These aids help fashion different shades, shadows, and textures. It is very rare that a work of graffiti is done with a brush or similar tool. Spray paint is the most common element found among murals and works of art.

Graffiti has a way of reaching out and bringing people together in a way that allows them to experience the familiar and the unknown. Ideas and opinions are freely given and almost expected. It serves as a means of freedom of speech that vocalizes aspects of different cultures, proffers opinions and gives way to personal expression. It allows artists a new outlet for their creative energy that standard methods of painting cannot offer. After all, there is no need for a gallery when the writing is on the wall.

Anthony Blunt was born in 1907 in Bournemouth, England to a clerical family and grew up in Paris where he became enamored with art and architecture. He attended Marlborough, which was a boarding school for boys during his adolescence and later went on to attend Cambridge University. While there, he became involved with Marxist thinkers and was sucked into an elite spy ring which would remain a secret until well later in his life. Meanwhile he became a very successful writer on art, producing more than thirty works on Poussin which earned him the rank of being the number one scholar on Poussin. He also wrote many books on seventeenth-century French art as well as Italian Baroque and Rococo art. His books were so informative that many are used to this day in universities around the world. He became the deputy director of the Courtauld Institute of Art in London in 1939 and later became the director in 1947. Around the same time, he was also honored by the King who named him Surveyor of the Collections at Windsor Castle. He later served the Queen in the same way. He held his roles of director and Surveyor around the same time, each ending within a few years of the other. He was knighted in 1954 but was stripped of this recognition in 1979 when he was unveiled as the “fourth man” in the Cambridge Spy Ring that consisted of Blunt, Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean, and Harold “Kim” Philby.

But despite this, Blunt was still regarded as a top art historian and teacher. He is credited with educating and influencing an entire generation of artists, art historians, and gallery and museum directors. He was able to make art of centuries past come to life amongst many modern art movements and managed to keep those classical traditions alive.

He died in 1983.

Blunt’s Bibliography:

1) Artistic Theory in Italy 1450-1600

2) General Catalogue of the Courtauld Institute (University of London)

3) The Masters 7: Poussin

4) Art and Architecture in France, 1500-1700

5) Baroque and Rococo: The Churches

6) The Drawings of Poussin

7) Picasso’s ‘Guernica’

Books on Blunt

1) Anthony Blunt: His Lives by Miranda Carter

2) Anthony Blunt by David Levine

“The Lady of Shallot” is a ballad poem written by Sir Alfred Tennyson in 1832. It was originally written with twenty stanzas and then rewritten in 1843 with only nineteen stanzas. The poem is loosely based on the tale of Lady Elaine who lived in Shallot who fell in love with Sir Lancelot, but he only had eyes for Guinevere. The Lady of Shallot is about a woman who lives alone in a tower who is forced to weave scenes she can only see in the reflections of a mirror. But one day she becomes restless and looks away from the shadows of her mirror and sees Sir Lancelot riding by. She falls in love with him and consequently becomes cursed. She realizes that he loves another. She then sails down the river to Camelot and dies of a broken heart.

John William Waterhouse had a minor obsession with Tennyson’s work, especially with “The Lady of Shallot”. His first painting portraying this woman was completed in 1888 and depicts the Lady as she begins sailing down the river to Camelot, singing her last song. She is dressed in ‘snowy white’ as Tennyson describes her and has a ruddy complexion from crying in despair. She stands out from the bleak landscape with her red hair and white dress in such a way that she appears to be glowing. She sits on top of her tapestry that she has weaved which is full of circular scenes she spied in her mirror. Swallows sing along with her in the bottom left corner. Swallows represent resurrection and therefore hint of her salvation as well as the rosary that sits on the prow of the boat. This speaks of the Virgin Mary and further emphasizes that she is Heaven-bound.

The last painting in Waterhouse’s Lady of Shallot series, ‘I Am Half-Sick of Shadows,’ said the Lady of Shallot, was completed in 1915. A different scene is shown, one that is far less emotional and tragic. It is before the Lady has seen Sir Lancelot and she begins to gr

ow weary of her menial existence. She has dark hair and wears a red dress. Once again, the Lady stands out from the dismal and shadowed background and appears to have a glow around her person. She is shown at her loom on which she is weaving pictures that have been reflected in her mirror. The shuttle that sits in her lap resembles a boat which foreshadows her impending death. Her expression is one of envy as she watches ‘two lovers lately wed’ in her mirror’s reflection. An additional oddity in this painting is that there is a rose pictured in the mirror which symbolizes love but there is no rose in the Lady’s room to cast a reflection. This speaks of her lack of love in her own life and therefore explains her envy.

A similarity between the two paintings are the circular scenes on the tapestries. Both paintings include them for the purpose of explaining her curse of endlessly weaving. If not for this task, she may never have been so prone to falling in love with Sir Lancelot in the first place. Obviously Waterhouse thought them important to include them in both of these paintings.The meaning behind their importance to him is unknown.

     John Pierpont Morgan was born April 17, 1837 in Hartford, Connecticut to Junius and Juliet Morgan. Junius was a partner of several different banking firms throughout J. P.’s childhood. At the age of fourteen, he moved with his family to London because of his father’s new partnership with George Peabody, a famous London banker. He attended the Gottingen University in Germany and while in Europe fed his curiosity of art by visiting the numerous galleries, cathedrals and museums that populate Europe.

Upon returning to America, he became the cashier for Duncan, Sherman & Co. He later went on to form his own firm, Dabney, Morgan & Co. It was in his later years that his fascination and acquisition of art took place. He was said to be voracious and was like Napoleon for his insane obsession of getting his hands on every piece of art he came across. He spent sixty million dollars on art in twenty years. By today’s standards, that is 900 million dollars. Much of what he bought he donated to various museums in New England and D.C. He began collecting art in the 1870s and created a “gentleman’s” library to house them. He was the President of the Metropolitan Museum of Art from 1904 to 1913. He gave this museum entire collections from his personal collections throughout his life. He was responsible for establishing the Met’s archaeological expeditions to Egypt and helped aid research of ancient civilizations at Princeton University, Yale University and even at his own private library.

He remained a prominent figure in his hometown as well by serving as the patron of the Wadsworth Atheneum in Hartford. He also served as a patron for the Metropolitan Opera, the New York Botanical Garden and the American Academy in Rome. He also served as President of the American Museum of Natural History for several years. He died on March 31, 1913. In his will he left most of his collections to be distributed among different institutions in the United States so that they could be made available to the American public. His son, “Jack”, carried out his wishes. It is to Mr. Morgan who we attribute many of our country’s academic standards and who we have to thank for being so generous with his income in order for the American people to be able to experience the amazing works of art that populate our world.

Morelli writes to his audience of students in an effort to influence beginning learners and to try to counteract the onslaught of close-minded thinking when it comes to the subject of connoisseurship. He says in his writings that the appropriate method to use when identifying the artist of a work is to focus the attention on the minute details of menial features such as the hands, ears, nose, etc. These “external features” are the true identifiers of an artist because they are as unique as handwriting and fingerprints. Each person writes differently, why can’t that same principle apply to how a person uses a paintbrush?

Morelli shares that a person must first be an art historian before becoming a connoiseur. The background of society and the artist’s life must be known first. He said, “Art and science are the heritage of all mankind, acknowledge no nationality.” He is responding to the common idea of the time that national prejudices shape and affect an artist’s mental vision and physcial sight. This idea opposes Berenson’s idea of connoisseurship method immensely. Berenson writes that an artist’s style is shaped by the region he/she is from. The regional school affects an artist’s style and technique. Berenson does acknowledge certain great artists and is unable to understand or explain why some regions produce great artists while others do not. For example, he mentions that no “great artist” has eer hailed from Pisa while other regions such as Florence and Siena seem to produce them rabbits.

Both artists agree that in order to be a connoisseur, one must first be an art historian. One can never be schooled or knowledgeable enough without first observing and understanding the discipline of art history.

In today’s society when everything and everyone is racing and spinning and the only thing that matters is the speed in which you get from place to place, it is a beautiful thing when one can just simply stop and breathe in a piece of art. It is incredible what a painting can do for the restless. It causes them to slow down and take a breath. Art history allows us to see the beauty in mundane places and things that an artist has brought to life. Art is a reflection of the world and society. To study the history of art is to study the history of the world and of humanity.

When I came to Mary Washington I was adamant about double majoring in Historic Preservation and History. I’ve known I wanted to do this since middle school. I’m one of the biggest history nerds you’ll ever meet and there is far little else I’d rather do than visit a historical site or museum.  But the more I thought about my future with a History degree the more unsure I became about what I would do with it. My photographer teacher in high school suggested the idea of museum studies and curatoratorial work which was something I had never really known much about. I did my research and the more I found out about the profession and field the more I fell in love with it. So upon coming to Mary Washington I decided on double majoring in Art history and historic preservation. I’m hoping to go into restoration/conservation architecture or become a curator.

Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Flash video.