I decided to try something new this week, and I’m looking forward to hearing what you think. Maybe because I also study Art History, I find it easier to think in terms of works of art, especially in regards to concept and theory. So this week I have decided to use art to understand Stoller’s modes of rationality. Also, I am working under the assumption that these aren’t works and artists known to you, so I will give as concise explanations as possible, in addition to the illustrations.
Piet Mondrian was an early 20th century Dutch painter interested in non-representational art. (For Mondrian this would eventually mean a reduction to line and colour block) This interest was informed in part by Symbolist thought, itself Neo-Platonic: what they were interested in was a visual art closer to music, in that it did not have any illusory aims in terms of the material world. Instead it was meant to invoke something beyond the material, a universal ideal. Which I think can be compared to Levi-Strauss’ ‘elementary forms’ (246) as underlying structures. I think it can and should be argued that Mondrian came from the same intellectual tradition as Levi-Strauss; I think which priviledged abstract notions above real-world situations.
The criticism these ‘lumpers’ (244) came in the form of Relativism.
Cindy Sherman is an American photographer who, in the late 1970’s took a series of self-portraits (frequently with a visual acknowledgement of this in the presence of the shutter cord) in poses derived from American pop-culture stereotypes of women. For example, the ‘available’ woman stretched out on a bed or a housefrau. Key to understanding her art then is the knowledge that she is the photographer, and as artist is commenting on those depictions of women. This involves agency.
Furthermore, while it is mostly incidental that Mondrian was say Dutch, Sherman’s art doesn’t make sense without knowledge of her gender. This hinges on two key elements of Relativism – the privileging of experience and diversity (248). Because without her experience as a women viewing those source images in the first place, there would not be her response. Her response then was a product of a specific reaction, a specific mode of thinking, of reasoning. That is a ‘diversity of rationality’ (248).
Wassily Kandinsky was an artist contemporary to Mondrian, involved with the Blauer Reiter group. By the time he painted Composition VII, the formal properties of his work were notable for highly abstracted figures and intense colour. Like Mondrian he was interested in an almost non-cognitive response to his art, he was also interested in the spiritual dimension of art. BUT his work, including Composition VII, was heavily influenced by Russian Orthodox icons and Christian narrative, in this case the Last Judgement. As such, he art can be viewed on different levels: the decorative aspects of the formal properties and the inclusion of Last Judgement figures (BUT in that case only really, if the viewer has that information).
What does this have to do with the Phenomenological mode? I think that the decorative quality of Kandinsky’s work, the one that most people are familiar with, is analogous to the ‘everyday’ aspect of that mode. And that the other symbols in the work can be compared to the cultural conditioning that effect meaning (250), in this case what the viewer sees in the painting. Or not. (Or for that matter, if the viewer comes from the Christian tradition, whether or not they are an insider)
So, which is most convincing?
Stoller seems to privilege the last mode he mentions: the embodied, at least as a goal. I think that the difficulty in deciding which is most convincing lies in that Post-Enlightenment legacy, the over-arching framework, or at least the search for it. While Mondrian considered representational art to be deceitful in a manner of speaking, couldn’t it be said on the other hand that looking for something beyond the mundane, the idea that a higher principle exists is also a bit ridiculous? On the other hand, while Relativism is such a narrow focus; how can you ignore the power dynamic that lead to its necessity? And here the example of Sherman, I think, makes sense, her experience as a woman is different period. To ignore that would not be just. (Although I guess that is applying a universal principle in itself)
That leaves phenomenology. And I think this is the most convincing, and again, if you look at Kandinsky’s painting. A viewer from the same religious background *might* perceive things, that someone from an entirely different tradition would not. BUT a viewer from a similar background who has an understanding of that period of art would have a different level of interpretation.
I hope that made sense. I think I was just trying to understand the three modes, and hopefully it can relate to rationality.
Piet Mondrian was an early 20th century Dutch painter interested in non-representational art. (For Mondrian this would eventually mean a reduction to line and colour block) This interest was informed in part by Symbolist thought, itself Neo-Platonic: what they were interested in was a visual art closer to music, in that it did not have any illusory aims in terms of the material world. Instead it was meant to invoke something beyond the material, a universal ideal. Which I think can be compared to Levi-Strauss’ ‘elementary forms’ (246) as underlying structures. I think it can and should be argued that Mondrian came from the same intellectual tradition as Levi-Strauss; I think which priviledged abstract notions above real-world situations.
The criticism these ‘lumpers’ (244) came in the form of Relativism.
Cindy Sherman is an American photographer who, in the late 1970’s took a series of self-portraits (frequently with a visual acknowledgement of this in the presence of the shutter cord) in poses derived from American pop-culture stereotypes of women. For example, the ‘available’ woman stretched out on a bed or a housefrau. Key to understanding her art then is the knowledge that she is the photographer, and as artist is commenting on those depictions of women. This involves agency.
Furthermore, while it is mostly incidental that Mondrian was say Dutch, Sherman’s art doesn’t make sense without knowledge of her gender. This hinges on two key elements of Relativism – the privileging of experience and diversity (248). Because without her experience as a women viewing those source images in the first place, there would not be her response. Her response then was a product of a specific reaction, a specific mode of thinking, of reasoning. That is a ‘diversity of rationality’ (248).
Wassily Kandinsky was an artist contemporary to Mondrian, involved with the Blauer Reiter group. By the time he painted Composition VII, the formal properties of his work were notable for highly abstracted figures and intense colour. Like Mondrian he was interested in an almost non-cognitive response to his art, he was also interested in the spiritual dimension of art. BUT his work, including Composition VII, was heavily influenced by Russian Orthodox icons and Christian narrative, in this case the Last Judgement. As such, he art can be viewed on different levels: the decorative aspects of the formal properties and the inclusion of Last Judgement figures (BUT in that case only really, if the viewer has that information).
What does this have to do with the Phenomenological mode? I think that the decorative quality of Kandinsky’s work, the one that most people are familiar with, is analogous to the ‘everyday’ aspect of that mode. And that the other symbols in the work can be compared to the cultural conditioning that effect meaning (250), in this case what the viewer sees in the painting. Or not. (Or for that matter, if the viewer comes from the Christian tradition, whether or not they are an insider)
So, which is most convincing?
Stoller seems to privilege the last mode he mentions: the embodied, at least as a goal. I think that the difficulty in deciding which is most convincing lies in that Post-Enlightenment legacy, the over-arching framework, or at least the search for it. While Mondrian considered representational art to be deceitful in a manner of speaking, couldn’t it be said on the other hand that looking for something beyond the mundane, the idea that a higher principle exists is also a bit ridiculous? On the other hand, while Relativism is such a narrow focus; how can you ignore the power dynamic that lead to its necessity? And here the example of Sherman, I think, makes sense, her experience as a woman is different period. To ignore that would not be just. (Although I guess that is applying a universal principle in itself)
That leaves phenomenology. And I think this is the most convincing, and again, if you look at Kandinsky’s painting. A viewer from the same religious background *might* perceive things, that someone from an entirely different tradition would not. BUT a viewer from a similar background who has an understanding of that period of art would have a different level of interpretation.
I hope that made sense. I think I was just trying to understand the three modes, and hopefully it can relate to rationality.
4 comments:
Hey Jen,
Wow! I am sooo impressed! That was one of the funnest blogs I've read!! What a really unique and cool perspective to bring to it! Frankly, I'm a little jealous!
I really enjoyed not only the art history lesson (I used to take art in high school, only for the art history component -- I cannot produce art to save my soul!), but also the way you were able point out how artist works might correspond to something from a wholly different discipline. Really, all I can say is 'wow', and thanks again for posting this!
Jen,
How intriguing! Thank-you so much for this refreshing view of concept and theory. Your explanation of how we cannot remove ourselves from our experience makes me wonder why we would ever want to. The example of Sherman’s portraits clearly illustrates that need for personal perspective and an understanding of the relativist argument.
Thanks for mixing it up!
Hi Jen,
I thought this was an amazing blog and such a great idea to have meshed both your expertise in art history and religion!
I liked how you compared Mondrian and Sherman's art to the two key elements of Relativism; more specifically the emphasis you placed that to understand Sherman's art is to also have the knowledge that she is the photographer, as well as her gender (which you had stated that to ignore her experience as a woman would not be just). I really enjoyed reading your blog.
Hi Jen,
That blog was very interesting. Also, I think it really helped to understand the three concepts. I myself know very little about art, so your comments/introductory sentences were very helpful. Just a quick question to get your feedback. How does looking for the mundane become ridiculous to a pious believer? Maybe art is a way artists experience the mundane, so can it not be true that there also exists a mundane element in religion?
Post a Comment