Expression II
(Note - There is another side to expression which still remains to be talked about ... the personal level of the artist doing the work and what that artist is feeling and expressing. That is a furutre topic.)
Style, as i am using it, is the expression of an artistic group or culture ... a time, place and peoples.
When we talk about baroque or romantic or neo-classical style the elements we are picking out that define the style in question are unique (as least as a grouping) to that style. When we talk about moving from one style to another we are talking about throwing out such a set of elements and moving on to another set of elements. In terms of style we are always starting over, there is no progress and it is not the kind of thing that lends itself to talk even of "flow", more or less of progress.
But much of what underlies a style, the assumptions shared by all or most styles, that is what we are tracking. We are choosing topics in line with that effort to track. We want to talk about what thing or things flow throughout the current of our narrative. "Image" is one of those things that lasts from antiquity up until the turn of the last century. That makes it a natural anchor, and even when it has left the stage as a dominent element it still holds philosophical value as a framework for discussing the non-image pieces in the canon.
I think of tracing the narrative of expression across Western art to be a task of art historians, not of philosophers. Expression as a topic will still raise its had, of course, just not as a unifying dimension of the narrative.
Style, as i am using it, is the expression of an artistic group or culture ... a time, place and peoples.
When we talk about baroque or romantic or neo-classical style the elements we are picking out that define the style in question are unique (as least as a grouping) to that style. When we talk about moving from one style to another we are talking about throwing out such a set of elements and moving on to another set of elements. In terms of style we are always starting over, there is no progress and it is not the kind of thing that lends itself to talk even of "flow", more or less of progress.
But much of what underlies a style, the assumptions shared by all or most styles, that is what we are tracking. We are choosing topics in line with that effort to track. We want to talk about what thing or things flow throughout the current of our narrative. "Image" is one of those things that lasts from antiquity up until the turn of the last century. That makes it a natural anchor, and even when it has left the stage as a dominent element it still holds philosophical value as a framework for discussing the non-image pieces in the canon.
I think of tracing the narrative of expression across Western art to be a task of art historians, not of philosophers. Expression as a topic will still raise its had, of course, just not as a unifying dimension of the narrative.
posted by Thomas F. Schminke at 3:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home