One of the books that I am reading at the moment is called "The Story of Art" written by E.H.J. Gombrich. It is an introductory history of art starting from around 15,000 B.C. until present day and so far it has been very interesting.
There is one point that Gombrich makes in his introduction that I found slightly odd though. The point that he is trying to make I agree with, but the illustration was poorly chosen.
His argument is as follows. Art is often rejected because it is unconventional. The illustration that he uses for this is a situation that arose in 1602 A.D. over the work of a young Italian painter by the name of Caravaggio. He had been commissioned to write a painting of St. Matthew for the wall behing the altar of a church in Rome.
The first painting that he did can be seen below. It depicts St. Matthew anxiously grasping the book with his left hand while his right is being guided by a boyish angel. This painting created quite a stir in Rome at the time and Caravaggio had to paint another version along more "conventional" lines.
(The original was burned in WWII. We only have black and white photos of it now.)
The replacement painting that Caravaggio made can be seen below. It follows the conventional tradition of religious painting that was prevalent at that time in Rome.
Gombrich holds that for this second painting "the outcome is still quite a good picture... but we feel that it is less honest and sincere than the first had been." (pg. 31, "The Story of Art" by E.H.J. Gombrich) According the him, something was lost in forcing Caravaggio to conform to conventional ideals rather than to fully express his creative abilities as an artist.
The reason that I do not agree with Gombrich's use of this illustration is that there is something else at play in it that he either does not know about, or has chosen to ignore. Religious art is something quite different from art proper, and serves a different purpose.
Religious art exists to teach theology, to raise humans hearts and minds from earthly things to contemplate heavenly things. Therefore, art which does not exemplify heavenly things is not worthy of putting into a church. It does not perform the purpose for which it is intended.
The rejection of Caravaggio's first painting had nothing to do with its unconventionality, but rather with its lack of appropriateness for use in church.
There are several possible reasons for the author's apparent blunder. He does not know of the nature of religious art and the purposes for which it is used, particularly several hundred years ago. However, this I think is unlikely given the amount of knowledge which this author has of art in general.
Another possible reason is that he does not believe that religious art needs to, or should have any other purpose than art in general. Therefore anything that rejects it because it is unconventional is committing an error, even if those reasons are legitimate religious concerns.
These are simply speculations though. Until I read more of his work I will not be able to understand why he used Caravaggio's St. Matthew to illustrate his point.
Carvaggio's first painting is quite nice and beautifully executed, as is his second. The first is simply inappropriate for use in a church, while the second has those qualities necessary that the first lacked.
I do agree with Gombrich's basic premise though. Art, in general and not including religious art, is often rejected because it is unconventional. Art should not be rejected simply because it is unconventional. It should be rejected if it is obscene, ugly, chaotic, and of no purpose other than to elicit a gag reaction.
P.S.
From an Orthodox perspective, even his replacement painting lacks the essential qualities of a religious painting or icon. Orthodox iconography is a completely different form of art than any other. The focus of the icons, the way in which figures are portrayed, and the colours are all different. This is for a very specific reason, partially because many people were illiterate, and the icons were a way of educating them, and many because an icon is a manifestation of something eternal, of something beyond human experience. Therefore it is necessary to use art forms that are different to allow the mind to transcend the human experience and contemplate eternity.
A good explanation of the various functions that Orthodox iconography can be found at the link below:
No comments:
Post a Comment