Alison Adams

Long Blog Post

Art & Visual Perception

For class on February 23^rd

The Boundaries of Art

            After doing this weeks readings, I began to wonder “what are the real “boundaries” of art?” We hear so many opinions in art school and these readings by Arnheim that it seems like we are constantly being taught that there is a “correct” way to express ourselves whether its on a canvas or on a stage. There are certain ways that artists can choose to place light, shading, color, or shapes in order to manipulate where the main attention of the viewer is placed. After learning this, I wondered what should me more important- that a painter place a certain amount of light in one area of a painting in order to change the viewers perception or that he focus more on the original intent and message of the work?

          In his first chapter, Arnheim asks the question himself...“why should artists strive for balance?” He claims that two of the main reasons an artist would want to strive for balance would be that the artist can make his statement unambiguous and that man strives for equilibrium. But then where does that leave abstract expressionists? Are they just meant to be counted as the exception to the rule? I wondered...why would an artist want his statement to be unambiguous? As I went on with the reading, I began to understand that Arnheim believes the artist would want to be unambiguous in order to portray a certain message in the work. If an artist has a specific opinion or story to get across in the work, it may not always get portrayed through ambiguity. Through balance, an artist can hopefully be sure that their statement will get across to the audience of their work.

           The basic law of visual perception according to Gestalt psychologists, as Arnheim states, is that “Any stimulus pattern tends to be seen in such a way that the resulting structure is as simple as the given conditions permit.” Arnheim also says that “all true works of art are quite complex even when they look simple.” So basically, even when a canvas in painted one single color it may look simple but there is a lot of meaning and experience behind it. Yet we would still strive for simplicity in our viewing of it, according to Gestalt psychologists. If there were various artists all painting one color on a canvas, they would all bring their different backgrounds and experiences to the work and that it what matters.

          Arnheim goes on to say that “Every painting or sculpture carries meaning. Whether representational or “abstract” it is “about something”; it is a statement about the nature of our experience” (pg. 62). I took this to mean that all art is art that means something especially because of the person behind the work of art. It is more about what the artist put into the work than what we get out of it. A viewer of a work of art should always try to keep in mind that behind the work there was once just an artist with a message to convey.

        Arnheim discusses a lot the relation between the image seen and the statement it is intended to convey. “Balance remains the final goal of any wish to be fulfilled, any task to be accomplished, any problem to be solved. But the race is not only run for the moment of victory” (Arnheim, pg. 37). I think Arnheim is saying that although we do strive for balance that does not mean we always strive to completely accomplish it. An artist may begin a painting hoping to achieve a certain amount of balance in its presentation, and even if the end result may not turn out the way they planned, they are still left with a work that represents the experience they had trying to get a message across.

         This leads me to think even further towards...how much ambiguity is too much or too little in art? Arnheim says “The principle of parsimony is valid aesthetically in that the artist must not go beyond what is needed for his purpose...to say too much is as bad as to say too little, and to make one's point too complicatedly is as bad as to make it too simply” (Arnheim, pg. 59). Meaning....an artist should give the whole message behind the work away without stating explicitly what it is...that is my interpretation for now.

            “Compositions by adults are rarely as simple as the conceptions of children; when they are we tend to doubt the maturity of the maker. This is so because the human brain is the most complex mechanism in nature, and when a person fashions a statement that is to be worthy of him, he must make it rich enough to reflect the richness of his mind” (Arnheim, pg. 59). Well I guess it sounds like we are a bit arrogant as a human race but I do find it to be true that my mind is most stimulated when looking at a complex work of art but this does not mean that the same meaning can't be drawn from a much less complex work. Arnheim says that we doubt the maturity of the maker that would compose a work of art as simple as one that a child could make. How does an artist make a statement that is simple and rich at the same time? Is this painting below painted by an actual 5 year old or a highly regarded modern artist? Does the answer matter in the analysis of the work? You tell me...

         In his next chapter on shape, Arnheim says “Mistakes in the comprehension of an artistic structure are easily made when a viewer judges by relations within narrow limits rather than taking into account the overall structure. The same mistake may also lead to faulty phrasing in the performance of a musical passage, or to an actor's misinterpretation of a scene. The local situation suggests one conception, the total context prescribes another”(Arnheim, pg. 77). I find it interesting the way that Arnheim connects his analysis of art in various ways in saying that an actor can misinterpret a scene by not successfully accounting the overall structure.

        There are many different “boundaries” in art that an artist can choose to play with and push to the limit. I thought back to the discussion we had last class about Mamassian's opinion on ambiguity. He said that visual perception is ambiguous and visuals arts play with these ambiguities. He says that

artists strive to leave the right amount of ambiguities to let the observer contribute to his experience in a personal way. At the same time, all perception requires that you make assumptions. And as Arnheim says, when looking at a work of art there are “psychological forces” at work and artists are able to effectively use certain techniques to manipulate our visual and mental perceptions. So then how can we really ever contribute to a viewing experience of a work of art in a “personal way?”

         Arnheim says: “The artist, for example, need not worry about the fact that these forces are not contained in the pigments on the canvas. What he creates with physical materials are experiences. The perceived image, not the paint, is the work of art” (Arnheim, pg. 17). Therefore, an artist should not focus on the structure or manipulation of space in his painting but instead be sure that the image he creates will contain the work he put into creating it. An artist should not worry about whether the message they want to get across will be understood but instead focus on the attempt at executing the proper portrayal of that message.

@Sarah Curtis- I really appreciated your posting. I really liked the connection you made between the points Arnheim made about expression and Pina. I recently saw the Pina film in 3D and it was definitely an overwhelmingly incredible viewing experience. I'm glad you reminded me of this film and pointed out this connection. When I saw Pina I think that I was was trying to do exactly what Arnheim now tells us to do by not viewing a work of art within narrow limits and instead looking at the overall structure. Pina's work is already so visually pleasing and incredible that it almost wouldn't matter if there was no meaning behind it. Yet obviously there is very deep meaning beneath her moves and Arnheim only enhanced by ability to dissect the worth of them even further.

One last note...while I was doing these readings I thought a lot about a postcard I have on my wall that I got at the Picasso museum in Barcelona of “las meninas conjunto.” That was part of a study done for a much larger work that also hangs in the museum called “Las Meninas” which was a series of 58 paintings done by Picasso in 1957. These paintings were related to “Las Meninas” painted by Diego Velazquez in 1656. It is really interesting to look at that original work and see how Picasso took a work that was a clear-cut depiction of reality and turned it into something more ambiguous. It is also interesting to see the ways that Picasso played with color and form over the course of the various paintings that he did leading up to “Las Meninas.”

“Las Meninas” by Pablo Picasso, 1957, oil on canvas

“Las Meninas Conjunto” by Pablo Picasso