Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Site for posting class reading responses as comments. Feel free to comment on other posts. History of Art, U.C. Berkeley. Instructor Sarah Hamill.
Fur-Lined Cup, Meret Oppenheim, 1936
Students
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(15)
-
▼
January
(15)
- No title
- Minimalism: For Class 3/31
- Warhol and Pop: For Class 3/19
- Johns, Rauschenberg, Frank: For Class 3/17
- Abstract Expressionism: For Class 3/12
- Modernist Sculpture: For Class 3/5
- Surrealism and Gender: For Class 2/19
- Modernism and Mass Culture: For Class 3/3
- Modern Objects and Things: For Class 2/10
- Primitivism: For class 2/5
- Cezanne and after: For Class 2/3
- Impressionism and Science: For class 1/29
- Response Week 1
- What is Analysis? For class 1/27
- Defining the Modern: for class January 22
-
▼
January
(15)
In her essay, “According to What”, Anne M. Wagner dives into a deep analysis of Jasper Johns’s Flag (1954). Wagner mentions how disputes arose concerning whether Johns’s artwork was a flag or a painting; in my opinion, such a dispute gives rise to Johns’s abandonment of modernism. Modernism during that time seemed to be moving in a direction in which artists created artwork that engaged the viewer. When viewing a work of art, the viewer was invited into the work, sparking their inner emotions and unconscious thoughts. However, Johns’s Flag does not seem to have such a personal interaction with the viewers. The tension over whether it’s a flag or a painting exemplifies how there’s an existing detachment; if Flag really is considered just a mere flag, I would find it difficult for the viewer to immerse themselves within the artwork. A flag is a symbol that commonly denotes patriotism and hope for citizens, and with such connotations, a flag cannot really make room for the arousal of the buried emotions within viewers. Yet at the same time, if Flag could spark interaction with viewers’ unconsciousness, I would assume that the interaction would be similar to the interactions felt by other viewers in that they would all revolve around a sense of patriotism, or what it means for them to be American. Although this may be true, Johns still breaks away from modernism in that there is still no personal interaction between the viewer and the artwork.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to Johns’s Flag, Robert Frank’s The Americans also abandons modernism. In her essay “Visions of Fascination and Despair: The Relationship between Walker Evans and Robert Frank”, Leslie Baier states that “although Frank’s subjects often appear closer to the viewer, they are paradoxically less accessible than the images in Evans’ photographs” (525). As previously mentioned, modernism was beginning to turn into artists creating artwork that would engage and submerge viewers within. The less accessibility of Frank’s images in The Americans that Baier refers to emphasizes how Frank breaks away from modernism; with less accessibility, viewers are unable to reach that personal interaction with the images that modernism sought to achieve. Baier mentions how even though the direct stares of the people in the Frank’s portraits invites the viewer in, they also are so sharp and intense that the viewer maintains distance with the figure represented; Baier further states that the viewer is “a voyeur rather than a participant” (525). With distance and nonparticipation experienced by the viewer in the encounter with The Americans, the personal interaction that modernism sought to create is nonexistent.
I understand how Johns and Frank break away from modernism with Flag and The Americans, respectively, yet in the same way, can such movement also indicate a change in direction for modernism?
Modernist works of art include surrealist aspects to it because they relate to the unconscious mind and bring out hidden thoughts and desires through changing the viewer’s perception or relationship to something. For example, Marcel Duchamp’s “Fountain” is originally a urinal in its pure form, but when rotated 90 degrees, it takes on the shape of a woman’s body and ceases to become functional in the everyday sense. In contrast, Jasper Johns’ “Flag” has a more direct relationship with its representation. The painting takes on the figure of the American flag and instead presents a different kind of conflict. Anne Wagner explores in her article whether “Flag” should be regarded as a painting or as a flag because of its composition and construction. Johns created it so that “it’s in sort of bad shape; it tends to fall to pieces” (532). Like the flag, it is battered and worn, symbolizing the experiences it has gone through and has emerged from victorious. As Wagner says, “Each touch, whether direct or delicate, is preserved, even memorialized” (534). In this case, what is represented embodies its symbol rather than departs from it to imply an unconscious idea. Duchamp’s urinal loses its functionality when the orientation changes; Johns’ painting of the flag, however, gains meaning. Johns rejects modernism when he turns away from Sigmund Freud’s idea of unconscious connections to objects that is often incorporated in Surrealist works of art.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, Robert Frank repudiates modernism by rejecting the hidden or the unconscious in his photographs. Jack Kerouac describes Frank’s honest portrayals of people in his photographs, saying “the faces don’t editorialize or criticize or say anything but ‘This is the way we are in real life…’” (518). Kerouac says that Frank’s photographs are accurate in showing what America truly is, at least in terms of what it is to him. Frank captures his subjects in their vulnerable states, showing pure and true unshielded emotion, although the faces are usually covered by shadows or objects. I think that the obscurity appeals to Frank because it leaves so much to the imagination. Viewers can speculate and wonder what caused the emotions to cross the subject’s face, but Frank is always careful to take his photographs in such a way that it would omit telling details. Leslie Baier talks about the instantaneous captures and their purposeful omissions in her article when she says, “The best of Frank’s photographs convey an impression of implicit transformation, as if he has caught the scene at the very instant when expectancy is becoming climax” (530). In a way, Frank’s photographs can almost be seen as Modernist because there is something hidden in that the viewer cannot directly see or understand; however, I feel that because Frank takes scenes in which people are unready or in the midst of experiencing something, the photographs portray naked emotion that is not visible in Modernist works of art. The unconscious does not exist for Frank because the emotions his subjects were experiencing in the scenes are too fresh and vulnerable to be covered.
Modernism includes an element of the unconscious to relate to the viewer. Johns and Frank, however, repudiate modernism because they are clear in representation and their works actually embody, and in some ways, become, what is portrayed.
In Robert Frank’s introduction, Jack Kerouac briefly states some of the many scenes that Frank has captured as a photographer shooting in America. His photos are not snap shots of the perfect American life, but rather they are scenes from all aspects of the “real” American life including a “tattooed guy sleeping on grass in park in Cleveland.” Frank captures life as it unfolds. “The faces don’t editorialize or say anything but ‘This is the way we are in real life and if you don’t like it I don’t know anything about it…’” Nothing is planned or laid out in advance with Frank’s work. In contrast to modern artists whose objective was to express their sensations and feelings, Frank is displaying the feelings of the scene around him. The camera doesn’t allow him to add his own interpretation to the work of art or express his thoughts about the image he photographs. Frank’s main goal is to capture a scene exactly the way he sees it.
ReplyDeleteAnne Wagner analyzes Jasper John’s 1954 Flag in her piece, “According to What.” One of the first things she mentioned about the flag was that it brought politics and art together. John branched away from modern artists ideas, especially abstract expressionists, who avoided any form of civilization in their artwork and looked down upon artwork that incorporated ideas from society. John’s work of art, whether a painting or a flag, was created from newspaper, wax, and a bed sheet. The details of the newspaper clippings are still visible after completion. “There is even a recipe, not for apple pie, granted, but for applesauce…” Unlike modern artists, John included aspects of modern life. His artwork included everyday materials that people frequently used and looked at. With such simple materials and a well-known model, the American flag, it goes without saying that his work of art is easy to reproduce and readily transferable. The reason John’s did this was “part of his general refusal of the semblance of invention or originality.” He didn’t follow abstract artists’ idea that artwork should be based solely on emotions. While John claims that the idea for Flag came to him in a dream, can the flag really be an original and personal thought? “Is there something personal in Flag?” Because John’s artwork is a version of the American flag, it seems to take on the idea that it belongs to an institution. Modern artists never allowed their paintings to be associated with a specific idea or institution connected to society or government.
In his interview with David Sylvester, John’s says, “I’m interested in things which suggest the world rather than suggest the personality.” To me, this statement is in direct contrast to the ideas behind modern artwork. John doesn’t want analysis or interpretation involved; he wants his work to be clear and factual for all his viewers. While abstract artists, such as Pollock, created works of art that were all about being “in the moment” and were composed of raw emotion, John is not as interested in expressing his immediate feelings. “I think in my paintings it has evolved, because I’m not interested in any particular mood.”
In modernism, artists strive to make a comment or critique on society, cultures, roles, and relationships. At the onset of modernism, nineteenth century artists depicted the technological advancements of the industrial revolution. They reflected on people’s attitudes towards the rapidly changing world due to this revolution by depicting their subjects in modern dress and settings rather than in the classical Renaissance attire and scenery characteristic of Academic paintings. Impressionists embraced the two-dimensionality of the canvas rather than trying to trick the viewer into seeing a realistic scene. Modern art then moved on to Primitivism and Cubism, followed by Surrealism, in which artists countered societal views towards sexuality and gender roles. Artists like Robert Frank and Jasper Johns repudiated modernism in that they did not attempt to critique society or call out for change or express a feeling of personal wrong-doing; they simply depicted their subjects for what they were and nothing more.
ReplyDeleteThere are two main commonalities between Frank, the photographer, and Johns, the painter. The first is that they both depict subjects that are solely American. The second is that both artists were impersonal in their depictions of their subjects. They do not try to thrust their own sentiments on the viewer.
To produce his collection of photographs, “The Americans,” Frank traveled across America using the Guggenheim Foundation Fellowship he won in 1955. Leslie Baier comments on Franks work when she writes, “’The Americans’ is, quite literally, the portrait of a journey: Frank’s trip across America.” His photographs captured the essence of the American people for who they were rather than in an idealized form. Frank’s photographs were not staged or set up; he captured real moments from everyday experiences. His subjects are in their own element. Jack Kerouac states that in Frank’s photographs, “the faces don’t editorialize or criticize or say anything but ‘This is the way we are in real life and if you don’t like it I don’t know anything about it ‘cause I’m living my own life my way and may God bless us all… if we deserve it.’” Frank embraces America for what it is and does not attempt to criticize the people with his own judgements.
Johns painted a series of American flags beginning in 1954 and continuing for several years. In painting these flags, he contradicted the current style of using painting as a personal outlet for one’s emotions and self. In Johns’s interview with David Sylvester, Sylvester states “Johns’s output… has often been interpreted as a sustained meditation on meaning, its construction and its elusiveness. Thus interpreted, his work presents a marked contrast to the American avant-garde’s then dominant preoccupation with self-expression.” Johns is defying modernism by repudiating his contemporaries’ preoccupation with self-expression in their works. Johns himself says, “I’m interested in things which suggest the world rather than suggest the personality. I’m interested in things which suggest things which are, rather than in judgments.” Through these means, both Frank and Johns were able to repudiate modernism with their art.
Mark Kohn
ReplyDelete3/18/09
When examining how Jasper Johns and Robert Frank repudiate modernism, it is useful to explore what it is modernism actually represents. Usually, modernist artworks seek to portray either an unconscious desire or express some sort of social commentary in a symbolic way. In both cases, the modernist artist has a predetermined agenda as to what direction she wants the artwork to take. For example, in Dalí’s Surrealist Object That Functions Symbolically—Gala’s Shoe, he takes seemingly everyday objects and places them in such a way that provides some social commentary on how women are objectified into mere objects of sexual desire. In achieving this, Dalí utilized his knowledge of female objectification to create a sculpture in a premeditative fashion. Unlike modernist tendencies to envision how an artwork will look before it’s completed, photographers like Robert Frank prefer to take pictures first, and then cultivate meaning once the pictures have already been taken. In his introduction to Robert Frank’s The Americas, Jack Kerouac explains how Frank does this when he says, “Robert Frank, Swiss, unobtrusive, nice, with that little camera that he raises and snaps with one hand he sucked a sad poem right out of America onto film, taking rank among the tragic poets of the world.” (521) Here, Kerouac comments on how Frank was able to take pictures of Americans, and in the process, extract some sort of emotive meaning from the pictures resembling a “sad poem”. In this excerpt, Kerouac uses the peculiar language of Frank having “sucked” a sad poem out of America, which highlights how the meaning of the photographs was taken from within the images instead of being imbued on the pictures externally. In many instances, Frank’s photographs seem to be taken out of spontaneity and then after being reviewed, appear to convey very powerful meanings. This practice of allowing meaning to work its way into his photographs demonstrates how Frank has chosen an alternative to modernist tendencies, which rely on predetermined methods of production.
Similar to Frank’s photographic practices, Jasper Johns produces a series of flag paintings which also repudiate modernism. Among the series of painted flags, while in Japan in 1965, Johns created a flag that was painted black, green and orange instead of the typical red, white and blue. By doing this, Johns was forcing the audience to stare at the painting for an extended period of time before allowing the meaning of the painting to make itself available to the viewers. Since the colors Johns used were black, green and orange, when a viewer would stare at the painting for a long enough time, the flag would appear to change to its complementary colors of red, white and blue. Consequently, Johns was literalizing the notion of creating the work of art first, and then extracting the meaning once it was created. Only in this instance, Johns was encouraging the viewers to use the same methodology when approaching the painting. Much like how the “true” colors of the painting are released from within the tableau only after viewing, Johns repudiates modernism by imbuing meaning into his work only after an artwork is completed. Johns reinforces this sentiment when he says, “I think one works and makes what one makes and then one looks at it and sees what one sees. And I think that the picture isn’t pre-formed, I think it is formed as it is made; and might be anything.” (540) Here, Johns highlights how he prefers to create artworks in an improvised manner in which the emotive meaning of the tableau comes to fruition through the process of creating. It is though these improvised tendencies that Johns and Frank repudiate modernism.
Johns and Frank repudiate Modernism through their fundamental difference in the view of the objective of their art. For Johns, this starts with what the artwork suggests. He states that he wants his art to suggest the world, not the personality. This is in stark contrast to modernism, where one of the main focuses is a perspective on the subject. Throughout the work that we have viewed in class, there has been specific point of view that can be interoperated in the work. For John’s, the work should not be altered to suggest judgments, but rather things should be seen the way that they are, without implying something. This is in stark contrast to many artists, especially Pollock. For Pollock, art was all about showing his emotion through forms that can only be interpreted because they do not resemble anything that a group of people can agree on. John’s wanted to portray images that were commonly accepted in society, so that he did not have to add his personal influence to the piece, but rather he was able to convey a message through his subject matter. This was why his subject was common objects, easily recognizable to Americans.
ReplyDeleteFranks follows the same idea as John’s. From the description of Frank’s works, it is evident that his goal is not the same interpretive style of previous Modernists, but rather it is to document and present ideas that are identifiable to all people. This allows the viewer to experience the piece for what it is, rather than having to interoperate the piece. His methods were oriented around this idea, he went around the country searching for things to share through experience, rather than through interpretation. Experience is an important difference between the Franks and previous modernists. Previous Modernists would give hints at ideas and have the viewer create their own experience, whereas Franks and Johns aim at providing a tangible experience to their viewers through subjects that can be understood. This roots the idea that objects and common sights can have their own importance without the added interpretation of the artist.
Jasper Johns and Robert Frank both offered a new view of modernism, an opinion that perhaps disregarded the ideas of modernism more than built upon the idea of modernism. Robert Frank was best known for his multitude of photographs that depicted virtually all aspects of the United States. He captured everything from the twenty-four-convenience mart to the Chinese cemetery in San Francisco. Though disparate in subject, Frank’s photographs captured virtually ever aspect of American life. In the essay on Robert Frank titled “The Americas”, Jack Kerouac notes that faces in Franks’ photographs “don’t editorialize or criticize or say anything but ‘This is the way we are in real life…” This idea represented by Kerouac represents how Frank rejects the idea of modernism. Other eras of modern art are very much centered on an experiential rather than visual experience. Surrealist works delve into the unconscious experiences of viewers, and impressionist pieces seek to capture the essence of a scene, not create an actually visual representation. Frank’s work however differs from this, and even reverts to the more traditional works of artists such as Beauguereau. Frank’s art captures the exact, the literal and the concrete, just as Beauguereau’s paintings sought to replicate the exact, the literal and the concrete through the technique of painting. Just as Beauguereau idolizes the life of the average peasant through making them beautiful in his paintings, Frank’s photographs are beautiful despite the fact that they represent the experiences of the average American. Beauguereau and Frank turn the mundane or average into something beautiful, simply by recreating it.
ReplyDeleteJasper Johns similarly continues with the aestheticization of the mundane or functional, however his work is more related to the modern than that of Frank’s. John’s painting Flag breaks from the modernist tradition and is similar to Frank’s because it creates beauty from something non-aesthetic. The American flag is at once a functional item that represents the United States, but in John’s work it is laden with symbols. It has newspaper clippings, official governments seals and passports. Viewers are torn between classifying Johns’ Flag as a painting or a flag. This is how Johns’ work is consistent with the modernist tradition. Where traditional artists like Beauguereau sought only to recreate a composed scene, modernist artists sought to question the meaning of art. With Duchamp’s ready-mades and Pollock’s splattered paint, modern artists virtually shatter the idea of technical art. Johns’ Flag does a similar thing, making viewers decide whether his piece is a political statement, a work of art or both.
Within the realm of modernist painting and art in general, artists are less occupied with recreating an image than they are with depicting an emotion, or a comment on their society, or critiquing a government. For example, in the early stages of this modernist style, artists portrayed their interpretations of how the people of the world were reacting to the constant and drastic changes that were going on due to the industrial and economic revolution. Even deeper within this modernistic style you began to see the approach of impressionism: painters who decided to show their feelings and not try to create a three dimensional image on their two dimensional canvas. Following along through the stages of Modern art, one comes to the style of Primitivism next, the creation of works either influenced by the art of primitive or third world cultures or their people. After that we see Surrealism, characterized of course by Dalí and other fine painters whose paintings usually focused around the ideas of gender in the sense of which gender was meant to do what and the idea of sexuality. In the articles we read this week, the artists Robert Frank and Jasper John never attempted to portray any of these things from any of these styles of modern art. All they tried to do was create a depiction of their subjects as they saw them to be even though they worked in different mediums.
ReplyDeleteOther commonalities between these artists, a painter and a photographer, are their distinctly American subject matter and the sense of removal from their subjects. This goes back to the idea of how they only tried to depict their subjects as they saw them, without shoving their own ideals, feelings or judgements on the subject or the viewer.
Although they chose different mediums for their artwork, both Johns and Frank depicted their subjects in thoroughly modern ways WITHOUT relenting to any popular modernist style. In this way, both artists were able to repudiate modernism in all their works.
Elisabeth Sevy
ReplyDeleteRefuting Modernism
Jasper Johns repudiates modernism because his art more directly represents his subject matter. Surrealist art, like Dalí’s Persistence of Memory attracts the unconscious. His unrecognizable figures and thought-provoking scene makes your unconscious mind flare up. Unlike Dalí, Jasper Johns paints an American flag and names it Flag, a more direct approach. His painting of a flag very much resembles a flag, almost so much that Wagner questions whether it should be considered a painting or just a flag. Then she realizes that “what matters is not whether it is a flag or a painting, but why the two—the symbol and the practice—have been so intimately married, till death do them part.” (Wagner, 535) Johns painting marries life’s politics and art. Johns talks about his desire to explore the world in his art. In painting a flag, he is directly relating his artwork to America, politics, the public, etc. This is clearly contrasting modernism because he is depicting what he wishes to address. He declares to Sylvester in the interview, “I’m interested in things which suggest the world rather than suggest the personality.” Abstract artists such as Brancusi and Dalí as I mentioned above strive to capture the essence and have the viewer experience the moment. Johns definitely attempts something different, which clearly refutes modernism.
Robert Frank, the photographer, also diverges from modernism just like Johns. Frank, “with that little camera that he raises and snaps with one hand” (Kerouac, 521) manages to capture America through film. Frank captures the lives of real people across America. He doesn’t try to capture them in the right moment to portray them as ideal humans, rather he takes pictures of the real them; and in doing so, he doesn’t judge them at all. “The faces don’ editorialize or criticize or say anything”, and as one man put it “This is the way we are in real life and if you don’t like it I don’t know anything about it ‘cause I’m living my own life my way and may God bless us all, mebbe”. In taking these photos, Frank doesn’t encompass himself in his artwork; he just lets the people in the photos speak for themselves. Similar to Johns, this contradicts modernism. He isn’t judging, or try to add anything to the photos, he just “snaps” a shot and lets the people tell their story.
Both Johns and Frank repudiate modernism in the fact that they both attempt to represent life for what it really is. They do not want the audience to have to analyze their artwork using only certain parts of the brain, they want the audience to simply experience the artwork without suggestion.
ReplyDeleteIn the past, we have learned that analyzing modern artwork generally requires acknowledging and using a certain part of the brain, eventually triggering certain functions within the brain. Modern art has in general has the audience think about what they are trying to portray through suggestions that they make through their artwork. For example in surrealist art, the audience needs to activate their unconscious to fully understand what the artist is trying to say. Without certain suggestions that the artist provides, the audience would be clueless. However, johns and Frank venture away from the norm of modern art. They want the audience to look at a painting or artwork and instantly be able to understand what is going on. For photography, it was a matter of capturing the moment precisely to depict what was going on without question. They produce a photograph that requires no suggestion or hidden interpretation because the photograph, from the start, explains itself. The one thing that Johns says he wishes to suggest are “things which are, rather than in judgments” (738). He wants the audience to be able to look at his artwork and be able to interpret it without making any judgments. The artwork does not need judgments because, as stated before, everything is provided without being hidden in the artwork. In this sense, Johns is striving away from the typical modern style because he does not envoke the use of anything except what is provided. They create artwork “without any constricted viewpoints” (739). They do not want their artwork to be named by any type of genre, they want to create what they want so that each individual can evaluate a certain expression from their artwork.
Overall, Johns and Frank strive away from the modern. They do not use typical “guidelines” that have guided modern art throughout the genres. They do not want to be constricted to a certain genre. They want to depict life the way that it is without going through a maze to get there.
Victor Gonzalez
ReplyDeleteSection 7
Repudiating Modernism
Upon first glance, Jasper Johns’ Flag appears to be simply a flag. In this sense, Johns’ does not inculcate abstract ideas or concepts in his artwork. In like manner, Robert Frank presents a collection of photographs of everyday America without alluding to any form of abstraction. It seems as though both Johns and Frank repudiate the complexity of Modern art by rejecting its aims; namely, the need to convey ideas, critiques, ideologies, and desires. Instead, Johns and Frank depict simplicity and focus on the objectivity of their subjects.
Anne Wagner argues that Johns rejected Modern art by refuting originality. “And Flag is certainly a refusal of invention for convention” says Wanger. (534) This quote from Wagner’s essay made me thing that if what she claims is true—that Johns is rejecting the originality associated with Modern art—then isn’t Johns returning to the classical tradition of painting? Isn’t Johns merely continuing what classical painter and sculptors started, that is, painting a subject for the sake of conveying a subject? Although Wagner mentions that Johns painting is in fact simple, in regards as to what it depicts, there is an inseparable symbolic level that accompanies a subject like a flag. In other words, a flag is associated with more complex and abstract concepts such as nationalism and patriotism. In this sense, is Flag as simple as one might expect it to be?
Although it is clear that Johns is deviating from Modern art, it is interesting to note that he may in fact be bridging classical art and Modern art by incorporating elements of both styles. For example, Johns depicts a simple subject, much like the subjects of classical art. Nevertheless, the flag carries complex implications characteristic of Modern art. Thus, Johns’ art can be seen as the liaison between classical and modern art. As Wagner suggests, “Flag was not painted in the wake of Abstract Expressionism, but directly in the midst” (534).
Robert Frank sought to capture the complexity of America through simple photography. Instead of creating an artistic photo essay in which he plays with camera angles, and other photography techniques, he photographs his subjects as they are. Like Johns, Frank photographs rawness However, there seems to be something greater behind this repudiation of Modern art. Why do the simple subjects of his photographs invoke so much empathy? In other words, why does a raw photograph appeal to me just as much as a photograph that experiments with photograph techniques? Although Frank and Johns repudiate Modern art, they also seem to be related in some way to it. To some degree, it might be that Modern has had such a great impact on the art world, that even when art seeks to return to classical tradition, it cannot escape Modern analysis.
Jasper Johns and Robert Frank do not necessarily repudiate modernism, but rather reflect on the traditional ways in which modernity has been portrayed in art. To start, Robert Frank was influenced by the earlier photographer Walter Evans who did a series of photos called American Photographs, that Frank was well aware of. These photos depicted a strikingly close portrayal of middle class or even lower class American society. His photos did not capture people in a staged format but rather a posed candid. The people were aware their photograph was being taken, yet they were not prepared to be photographed. This approach to photography was ground breaking, and could be labeled as modern since it drifted from earlier photography formats. Similar to Evans, Frank also did candid photos, but more literally. He also captured everyday life, yet did not gain the attention from those he captured, challenging the permanence of a photograph. He asked, what is more real the photograph or the person being photographed? This question is a very modern notion, that Frank does not drift from modern art but rather embraces it through another lense. He still keeps the same ideals of challenging the real and embarrassing art as an art, but instead places the real and art in the same realm.
ReplyDeleteLike Frank, Jasper Johns, an American painter, embraces modernity but emphasizes different aspects than other earlier modernist painters. Johns still stresses the falseness of art as reality, but chooses to do this by representing very real objects. He does not try and place dream like subconscious images on a canvas like the surrealists nor does he paint pure feeling like the abstract expressionists; Johns depicts commercialized objects that are rather ignored or taken for granted, like the American flag. By painting this Johns is able to reiterate that his painting is not of real life, but encourages the viewer to recognize that anything can become art or “fake”. This forces the viewer to look at the object depicted differently than before. “I don’t think it’s a purposeful thing to make something be looked at, but I think the perception of the object is through looking and through thinking. And I think any meaning we give to it comes through our looking at it.” (Johns) This quote expresses that the purpose of his paintings are not meant to be just aesthetically appreciated by also interpreted. Therefore, even a seemingly meaningless object can have purpose and conceptual depth through painting.
Neither artist purely rejects modernism, rather they expand its ideals. They encourage the freedom of depiction and accept depiction for what it is, a rendering of something. Yet, they juxtapose depiction with reality, in other words compare the two through art. This notion truly distinguishes these artist from the earlier modern artists.
In her essay, “According to What”, Anne Wagner seeks to decipher the meaning and significance of Jasper Johns’s seminal Flag. On the surface, it looks quite plainly like American flag, although made in a very unique way, by tearing pieces of cloth and newspaper into little bits, dipped into colored wax, and then pasted onto a stretched bedsheet according to pre-stenciled outlines. This process left the end result looking like it had actually been a flag, assembled together from separate pieces of fabric. Understandably, this work stirred much debate about whether it was a painting or a flag, due to “a tension between its presence as an image and its role as a sign”, as Wagner put it.
ReplyDeleteAnne Wagner, however, repudiates this question about the work and instead suggests that we explore why a symbol like the American flag and the practice of painting have been “so intimately married”. Flag depicts its subject, the American flag, so straightforwardly and directly, lacking a personal interpretation common to modern art that we have seen before. Despite its unique method of creation, rather than just conventional oil paint on a canvas, Johns sought to depict a symbol clearly and without embellishments. Much like Renaissance artworks that realistically depicted idealized subjects for the purpose of depiction, this painting symbolically projects the feelings associated with the United States of America through depicting its premier symbol, using newspaper fragments that still had snippets of text visible despite the wax layering, distilling the national press and embodying “everyday life” and “comfortable normalcy”.
Similarly, through his photographs, Robert Frank depicted sheer “American-ness”, capturing moments in everyday American life while traveling through the country. While Jack Kerouac’s introduction does not include any reproductions of Frank’s photographs, we can still get a sense of them from his monographic, disjointed description. Unlike some modernist photographers that used the characteristics of the medium—the magnification afforded by the lenses, for example—Frank frankly depicted the subjects that he saw. They apparently lack the careful, contrived compositions or camera angles used by, for example, Man Ray in his Érotique voilée, or the preparation involved in close-up, magnified photographs that some took of plants or of their own sculptures. Unlike, for instance, Claude Cahun’s self-portraits that tried primarily not to depict its subject faithfully but make a statement about the nature of sexuality, Robert Frank’s photographs seem objective, precise records of their subjects. While Frank obviously considered composition and angle in taking his photographs, they seem intent on emphasizing if not the subject itself, the feelings or emotions associated with it, not something else.
Primarily, Jasper Johns and Robert Frank repudiate modernism by rejecting the use of figuration in art solely as a vehicle for delivering other meanings and feelings. Through their straightforward reproductions of the subjects, they return to classical art by being interested in how to depict something clearly, accurately, and objectively. While these works have influences from past modernist works, and have influenced future ones—for example, pop art would emulate Jasper Johns in objectively depicting popular symbols—they show distinctive characteristics that indicate their removal and distance from modernism.
The paintings we have previously studied have presented modernism is distinct ways. Around the time of Industrial Revolution, modernism began with the departure from traditional classical representation to the portrayal of modern technologies. With the Impressionist movements, artists rejected attempts to make painting appear three-dimensional. Impressionist paintings depicted what the artist felt about a scene or subject he was painting. Abstract Expressionist painters broke this idea down even further to turn representation into an individualistic emotional experience. Surrealism then tapped deeper into the unconscious to reveal the latent truths that are hidden in our minds. These concepts of modernism follow a distinct evolutionary process through which ideas of representation develop in a linear pattern.
ReplyDeleteJasper Johns and Robert Frank repudiate these ideas of modernism by deviating from this evolution. Both artists seek to represent in the most basic way, without attaching a deeper personalized meaning to their artwork. With the transitions from Impressionism to Abstract Expressionism and Surrealism, the modern forms of art seemed to be trudging deeper and deeper into a more intrinsic, personalized experiences that had more to do with the individual experience than anything else. In contrast, Johns and Frank create art that is distinctly impersonal.
As Johns described it himself in his interview with David Sylester, he made things like Flag because they seemed to be “pre-formed, conventional, depersonalized, factually, exterior elements.” Here, he explains how his art is intended to have as little need for judgment as possible--the meaning came directly from the subject. Judgment, however, was the key to interacting personally and having and individualized experience with other works we have encountered like with Rothko or Brancusi. Franks employs a similar idea of refraining from judgment and personal interpretation. His photography is intended provide an experience for the viewer without leaving a subjective mark.
First off, thanks to my peers for helping me redigest the definition of modernism and summarizing the class. Like Michaela, I am in somewhat disagreement about Johns and Frank repudiating modernism.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is imprecise, perhaps even inappropriate, to find an overarching definition of modernism that spans Impressionism, Cubism, Primitivism, Surrealism, Kitsch, Dadaism, Readymade Sculpture, and Abstract Expressionism, I find a trend in how artists explored art techniques to express their emotions or elicit an emotional experience from viewers.
I can understand the arguments that claim that Johns and Frank repudiate modernism since they strive to portray objects that are “depersonalized” so that their art can “suggest the world rather than suggest the personality…suggest things which are, rather than in judgements” (539). Johns chooses the American flag which is antifigural and a symbol not unique to the artist. Frank’s subject matter is the middle-low class American citizens as they interact with each other and their environment in everyday life, also not tied uniquely to Frank. Both artists try to minimize their judgements or feelings about their subjects, in opposition to other Modernist movements such as Abstract Expressionism where the focus is entirely on the artists’ emotions or expression.
However like in readymade sculpture such as Duchamp’s “Fountain”, the choice involved of specifically the American flag and specifically lower-middle class Americans does unintentionally express Johns and Frank’s emotional resonance with their subject matter. Although Johns claims that he does not want to put subjects or art on an “aesthetic hierarchy”, he does put the American flag on a pedestal for contemplation by using it as his subject. Frank draws attention to coffins and jukeboxes, causing audiences to examine the significance and uniqueness of these objects. So although both artists seem to distance themselves from their subjects, we get a sense of what subjects and what techniques are interesting to them. We immediately question what is in the painting or photograph and how the what is portrayed. We can ask why does Johns include a passport or used wax to color pieces of fabric and newspaper. We can ask why Frank chooses an elevator girl or kids sitting alone in the car and why the photograph is taken at that certain angle or focus. The action of choosing these subjects and the technique of portraying them aligns with other modernist movements. The action of choice follows readymade sculpture and the techniques of portrayal follows the 2-D or honesty of Impressionist and other modern painters. Johns and Frank might have had the intention of distancing their personal feelings or attitudes from their subjects but even Johns acknowledges that “intention involves such a small fragment of our consciousness” (541). In other words, Johns accepts Freud’s theory of the unconscious which is embraced in Surrealist art. Therefore Johns acknowledges that like Surrealist artists, his unconscious influences his painting and therefore his views, attitudes, and feelings are inseparable from the paintings that he creates. If Johns and Frank were truly trying to remove themselves from their subjects then they would have to create a computer program to randomly select techniques and randomly select objects to create as art.
So in one sense I can see how Frank and Johns stray from modernism in minimizing their personal expression but I also see that their action of choosing a subject and “honest” technique inherently displays their personal interest in their subjects.