“First Things” recently carried an article entitled: Leo Steinberg’s Artistic Vision by Dr. Dianne Phillips. This very interesting article makes the following point:
The fact that medieval and Renaissance religious paintings in America are almost always encountered in museum galleries rather than churches also facilitated their aestheticization and the inability or unwillingness to understand them as religious objects with a precise theological meaning. Within the museum, the dominant narrative is the development of artistic style. Religious art is displayed in the same way as modern paintings, encouraging the visitor to think of the works primarily in terms of their formal qualities and not in terms of the meaning they would have had to artist and worshipper.
She was discussing Leo Steinberg’s thoughts on the theological importance of Renaissance artists’ display of Christ’s genitals in an unapologetically natural way; the fact that this sounds inappropriate to we moderns is more a condemnation of our times than theirs. The fact that these works are regularly found in museums now means that they are considered as “art”, i.e., formal qualities are paramount. But these works were generally created for a space in a church, where theological content was most important–the difference critically effects how we perceive the work unless the audience remains consciously aware of this difference.
The point of this blog is to remind audiences of the import of context. I have emphasized elsewhere that I am very concerned with form, and that this approach is probably as good a way as any to distinguish “fine art” photography from other forms of photography. I did not mean to say, however, that the subject ought not matter. By necessity, a fine art photographer makes the subject matter important when he or she captures the data to make an image—it’s the nature of the medium. However, as pointed out by Dr. Phillips, the effect of venue on a work of art frequently reflects the current attitude about what art is and also effects, perhaps subconsciously, the attitude of the viewer in that all too often the casual viewer makes assumptions about what he or she is supposed to think and feel by the venue.
More broadly, the audience participates to some degree in creating the art. There is a wise quote from Samuel Johnson on my Nook cover: “A writer only begins a book, a reader finishes it.” Thus, the true artist shares his personal revelation with the viewer who reacts to it, bringing with them their own experience and judgment. Understanding this, I hope that everyone visiting an art museum or gallery recognizes and considers the fact that the artist may well have had a different venue in mind, as is clearly the case with religious art. Framing type can have this effect to a lesser extent, as just one more example. The effect of context of Art is just another example of how Art demands that we exercise our imaginations so that we can begin to actively participate in the revelation the artist had in mind, unfiltered by someone else’s opinion of the work, no matter how “educated” they might be considered—engage the Art yourself!
No. 33: Context Matters
“First Things” recently carried an article entitled: Leo Steinberg’s Artistic Vision by Dr. Dianne Phillips. This very interesting article makes the following point:
The fact that medieval and Renaissance religious paintings in America are almost always encountered in museum galleries rather than churches also facilitated their aestheticization and the inability or unwillingness to understand them as religious objects with a precise theological meaning. Within the museum, the dominant narrative is the development of artistic style. Religious art is displayed in the same way as modern paintings, encouraging the visitor to think of the works primarily in terms of their formal qualities and not in terms of the meaning they would have had to artist and worshipper.
She was discussing Leo Steinberg’s thoughts on the theological importance of Renaissance artists’ display of Christ’s genitals in an unapologetically natural way; the fact that this sounds inappropriate to we moderns is more a condemnation of our times than theirs. The fact that these works are regularly found in museums now means that they are considered as “art”, i.e., formal qualities are paramount. But these works were generally created for a space in a church, where theological content was most important–the difference critically effects how we perceive the work unless the audience remains consciously aware of this difference.
The point of this blog is to remind audiences of the import of context. I have emphasized elsewhere that I am very concerned with form, and that this approach is probably as good a way as any to distinguish “fine art” photography from other forms of photography. I did not mean to say, however, that the subject ought not matter. By necessity, a fine art photographer makes the subject matter important when he or she captures the data to make an image—it’s the nature of the medium. However, as pointed out by Dr. Phillips, the effect of venue on a work of art frequently reflects the current attitude about what art is and also effects, perhaps subconsciously, the attitude of the viewer in that all too often the casual viewer makes assumptions about what he or she is supposed to think and feel by the venue.
More broadly, the audience participates to some degree in creating the art. There is a wise quote from Samuel Johnson on my Nook cover: “A writer only begins a book, a reader finishes it.” Thus, the true artist shares his personal revelation with the viewer who reacts to it, bringing with them their own experience and judgment. Understanding this, I hope that everyone visiting an art museum or gallery recognizes and considers the fact that the artist may well have had a different venue in mind, as is clearly the case with religious art. Framing type can have this effect to a lesser extent, as just one more example. The effect of context of Art is just another example of how Art demands that we exercise our imaginations so that we can begin to actively participate in the revelation the artist had in mind, unfiltered by someone else’s opinion of the work, no matter how “educated” they might be considered—engage the Art yourself!