Challenging art …

I took the opportunity of a trip to London to slip into the Hayward Gallery to have a look at the Andreas Gursky retrospective.   I’ve been interested in Gursky for some time as, like fellow German Anselm Kiefer, he is someone who uses his art to ask big questions (see “The fine art of asking big questions” and “Anselm Kiefer and the art of algae”).  Gursky is principally a photographer rather than painter or sculptor though, like Kiefer, he works at large scales.  The Rhine II, the picture at the top of this post, is 3.5 m long and 2 metres high, for example.   Taking a picture on a mobile phone doesn’t really do it justice, particularly as Gursky’s works, though they look naturalistic, are the result of extensive digital manipulation.   In this case, he has turned a landscape of the River Rhine near Dusseldorf into a near-abstract composition.   This involved digital manipulation to remove all evidence of buildings on the far side of the river.

The next picture I’ve included is the type of image for which Gursky is best-known: monumental images taken from a high viewpoint and teeming with activities associated with global capitalism.   In this case, he has photographed a factory in Vietnam that is making cane furniture for IKEA.   I look at this work as a descendent of Bruegel’s busy pictures from the sixteenth century except that Gursky’s narrative is very different to anything that Bruegel tried to portray.   Here, the sea of identically-attired individuals all performing variations of the same basic processes merge into a repetitive abstract pattern.   It is the antithesis of Cartier-Bresson’s “decisive moment” not just because there is no single “moment” that is being captured but also because the impression of spontaneity is also false: these large images are, in fact, composed from many different images.  It is not always apparent on first viewing but close examination reveals the images to be uniformly in focus from front to back and, in the case of the panoramic views, to have no issues with distortion at the edges.   So Gursky also takes us to that ambiguous territory where images look like they are depicting an actual point in space and time but they are not yet, at the same time, they are conveying truths about the modern world.   We approach his work with an expectation that photographs represent reality.  But they don’t.  Or do they?

Andreas Gursky, 2004, Nha Trang.   295 x 207 cm

Les Mées is another example of a superficially simple image of an enormous solar farm in southern France, with the Alps as a backdrop.  Once again, however, there is post-production manipulation of the image but also, in part a consequence of scale, the invitation for the viewer to contemplate and meditate on what is portrayed.  Here we have the juxtaposition between the regular, angular solar panels completely covering the hillsides in the foreground, and the natural beauty of the Alps behind.   The manmade looks that much more artificial through the juxtaposition with the grandeur of the mountains.   One of the ironies of the image is that solar panels represent a sustainable future yet are, in this location, as much of a visual pollutant as an oil refinery.   This solar farm covers 200 hectares and generates enough electricity to power 12,000 households.  How many more of these would be needed to break the West’s dependence on oil and how many more landscapes would be changed as a result?   Energy always has comes at a price.

Gursky’s talent is to simultaneously draw viewers in to inspect the details whilst forcing them to step back and absorb the whole.  As you realise from the details that the image may not be exactly what first impressions suggest, so your mind is opened to other readings.   We look at these images both as technical creations in their own right but also as commentaries on the state of the world.   Gursky manages to simultaneously challenge our eyes and our thinking.

Andreas Gursky (2016) Les Mées.  221 x 367 cm.

Coda: A week after visiting the Gursky retrospective, I saw The Square at the Tyneside cinema.  If you have not heard of this film, it is a film about a contemporary art gallery directed by Ruben Őstland.   The plot focuses on the curator of a contemporary art gallery who is trying to present high-minded conceptual art with a moral message relevant to our times so it was hard not to escape the parallels with the Gursky retrospective.   Much of the dark humour in the film arises from the curator’s inability to reconcile these high ideals with his own private life (one of the key sequences involves a one night stand with a journalist – played by Elisabeth Moss – whose name he subsequently cannot remember).   One gets a sense when seeing art in the hushed sepulchres that are contemporary art galleries that these have a quasi-spiritual role in a largely secular age.   I have no problem with this, especially if the art makes people think about their place in the modern world.  But that does place a great responsibility on the artists and curators, in turn creating the potential for storylines such as that in The Square.   Ruben Őstland has done for contemporary art what Graham Greene was so good at doing for the Roman Catholic church: highlighting the paradoxes that are inevitable when fallible humans struggle to address the biggest questions of all.

Advertisements

The art of icons …

A week off from algae, as I travel around Bulgaria on holiday.  In between exploring mountains (and, I admit, pulling a toothbrush from my knapsack on a couple of occasions for a sneaky diatom sample), I have been learning about the intricacies of Eastern Orthodox icon painting, as a break from my normal scientific and artistic routines.  My interest was piqued by a visit to the superb icon gallery at the National Museum of Art of Romania in Bucharest last year, though this mostly served to demonstrate how little I knew, either about icons or their context in Orthodox worship.

Context is important because, in our secular age, we are most likely to encounter religious art in a gallery rather than a church.  My initial response to an icon, such as that in the image below, is to place it into a Western art historical context.   I note the relatively simple modelling of the features, depicting archetypes of religious figures and the flat background.  There is no attempt to place the figure in three-dimensional space, as most religious painters from the Renaissance onwards would have tried to do.  They were trying to draw the viewers in, creating space inside the picture that encouraged them to engage with the subject matter.  Painters of the Counter-Reformation, such as Rubens, went further, painting the protagonists in their religious paintings life size and dressing them in contemporary clothes to encourage viewers sense of participation.

An icon of Christ Pantocrator from the Bankso school of icon painters (late 18th / early 19th century) in southern Bulgaria.  The image at the top of the post shows the iconostasis at Mānāstirea Stavropoleos, Bucharest, Romania.

By contrast, by flattening everything but the subject’s physiognomy, the Orthodox icon painter projects his subjects into our space, encouraging a different type of engagement.   Orthodox Christianity has a strong tradition of contemplative prayer, in which knowledge of God is attained through meditative practices such as repetition of a meaningful word or short phrase.  In this context, icons can serve as objects that help viewers to concentrate their minds while they step away from the everyday world and towards the divine realm.  One manifestation of this is that there is typically more activity in an Orthodox Church, compared to a Catholic or Protestant church, outside of organised services, as worshippers make their own private devotions in front of icons.

This use of repeated phrases suggests parallels with eastern religions – the Hindu incantation “Om mani padme hum” being the best-known example.  Look, too, at the right hand of Christ in the icon below.  That, too, resembles the symbolic hand gestures – mudras – found in Hindu and Buddhist contemplative practices.   Whether there is more than a superficial resemblance, in this particular instance, is a moot point.  Christ’s hand is raised to confer a blessing on the viewer and the position of the fingers is related to this.  They spell out “ICXC” –  IhcoyC XpictoC, or “Jesus Christ”.   The confusion with eastern practices arises, I suspect, from the way that the fourth finger is bent over to touch the thumb, similar to the Chin Mudrā.

On the other hand, there would have been ample opportunity for exchange of ideas along the Silk Road.  Early Christianity extended much further east, and Buddhism further to the west before the rise of Islam. Diarmaid MacCulloch has suggested that the principle of monasticism, for example, may have been brought into the church by early missionaries returning from the east and, if this is the case, then it is possible that practices associated with monasticism would also have flowed east.  And, equally, there is no reason to assume that the movement was entirely one-way or solely between Christianity and Buddhism.  Our first reaction on walking into Rila monastery in southern Bulgaria was to notice the physical similarities with the huge Madrassas that we saw in Uzbekistan earlier this year (see “Reaching for the stars …“).

What we can see an Orthodox icon, in other words, is a product of time and place, only if we also recognise that time and place are continua, that ideas can flow and that there is a ‘natural selection’, of sorts, that selects and shapes these to fit local circumstances.  Traveling broadens the mind, without a doubt, but sometimes you need to unload your preconceptions in order to free up the mind to see the world through fresh eyes.

The courtyard of Rila monastery in southern Bulgaria with the Church of the Nativity on the right.

Miniature masterpiece …

fabritus_goldfinch_edinburg

I had an hour of spare time in Edinburgh last week, and dived into the Scottish National Gallery, conveniently positioned just five minutes from Waverley station.   There is plenty in the permanent collections to make this a worthwhile diversion but, today, and totally unexpectedly, I was in for a particular, treat, as Carel Fabritus’ The Goldfinch was on display, loaned from the Mauritshuis in The Hague.   It is a tiny picture – measuring just 33.5 by 23 cm – but it is a wonderful little canvas, depicting – as the name suggests –a lifesize goldfinch, one of the most regular visitors to our bird table here in Bowburn.

My interest in Dutch painting occasionally spills over into this blog (see “How to paint like Vermeer” and “A wet afternoon in Berlin”) and Fabritus plays a small but important role in the story of the Dutch Golden Age, being a pupil of Rembrandt but also, possibly, a mentor to Vermeer himself.  He provides the elusive link between these two great masters (though the link with Vermeer is only circumstantial).   He was killed at the young age of 32 just after this picture was painted, when a magazine of gunpowder exploded in the city of Delft where he lived.   Looking at the picture – which is, in effect, a trompe d’oeil – the similarities to Vermeer become apparent: the modest subject matter, the attention to detail and, in particular, the realistic treatment of light and shadow.  The tiny picture draws the viewer into its world and, in Edinburgh, it completely overshadows the much larger works that surround it including, ironically, one by Vermeer himself.

My last encounter with The Goldfinch was via the printed word: Donna Tartt uses an encounter with this picture (on loan to the Met in New York in her treatment) as a plot device in her novel The Goldfinch.   It thus joins Tracy Chevalier’s Girl With A Pearl Earring in the exclusive club of novels named after great Dutch paintings.  That has got me thinking … what other novels have Dutch paintings as their titles?  Send me your suggestions  …

goldfinch_in_bowburn_may16

A rare excursion behind a telephoto lens: a goldfinch photographed in our garden, May 2016.

Abstracting from reality …

Abstract_based_on_Sironi_Au

In a recent post, I mused on the blurred boundaries between “representation” and “abstraction” when applied to the microscopic world (see “How to win the Hilda Canter-Lund competition (2)”.  These reflections sent me back to one of our earliest winners, Mario Sironi’s image of a Southern Right Whale swimming through an algal bloom (see “How to win the Hilda Canter-Lund competition”), to test these thoughts.  My reflections were mostly concerned with the microscopic world; that Mario’s image deals with one of the largest organisms on earth just helps to make the point.  At the heart of representational art lies the ability of an independent viewer to relate a two dimensional image to a “sense impression” (or “schemata”) lodged in their mind.   That means that if the viewer does not have the same schemata as the artist, then an image that was intended by the artist as representational will not be recognised as such.  The artist usually assumes that viewers will possess a catalogue of such schemata that are broadly similar to his or her own.

Most people who depict the natural world – whether by photographs or other media – confine themselves to the macroscopic and the obvious.  This means that there is a strong chance that the viewer will possess the appropriate schemata and both “recognise” the image and make appropriate mental connections that allow viewers to add layers of context in order to interpret a picture.   A picture of a lamb, for example, should be recognisable as a juvenile stage of Ovis aries.  This, in turn, may be used by the artist to suggest an interpretation.  To a 16th or 17th century viewer, a lamb included in a portrait of a child suggests youthful innocence: an interpretation that may be lost on a modern viewer who sees, simply, a child with a lamb, but lacks the mental connections to read more deeply into the image.

When the microscopic world is used as subject matter, the distinctions begin to blur yet further – the images themselves might be “realistic” but still not be recognisable by the lay viewer, and the reduced number of mental connections will limit the ways in which the picture is interpreted yet further.   One person’s “representation” can become someone else’s “abstract” image.   The idea in the painting above is to take an image that is representational – most people would recognise that two whales formed the focal point – and then to “nudge” it over the border into abstraction.   The interplay between the greens and the blues of the water brought to mind some of Mark Rothko’s juxtapositions of colour.   The whales and their attendant foam could, in turn, be reduced to a few lines of black and white paint, providing a focal point for the canvas that sets it apart from Rothko’s signature style.   In retrospect, I could probably push the image a little further towards abstraction than this experiment …

I see antecedents for this work in Piet Mondrian’s explorations of the boundary between realism and abstraction around 1912.  He painted a whole series of images of trees that gradually, over time, were stripped back from recognisable Post-Impressionistic landscapes to a point where form was asserted over content, the palette was reduced and, eventually, the schemata of a “tree” disappeared altogether.

My point is that the boundary between “realism” and “abstraction” is not a fixed point, but depends upon our own sensory experiences.   Those of us who portray the world of microscopic algae need to remember this.  Perhaps the same argument can be posited for the boundary between “representation” and the “other worlds” theme that I mentioned in my earlier posts?   Again, we need to consider our audience: my aim in my paintings and in these posts is to convey some of the wonders of the natural world that most people overlook.   The question we need to ask is whether we are fulfilling this role as ambassadors for the hidden world of algae if most of our audiences are just seeing shapes and patterns?

Reference

Gombrich, E.H. (1960).  Art and Illusion.   A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation.   Phaidon Press, London.

A stamp of approval …

German_diatom_stamp

A small parcel arrived from Germany last week bearing, in addition to a seasonal offering of Lebkuchen, two stamps featuring diatoms, part of a series of stamps termed “Microworld”.   A little detective work has revealed this picture to be the work of KAGE Institute of Scientific Photography, based in an impressive castle in Baden-Württemberg, about 60 km to the east of Stuttgart. Their website modestly includes Spiegel Online’s description of them as “Prominentester Mikrofotograf der Welt” (“most famous microphotographer in the world”).

Of course, after all I have written about the poor perception of algae in the wider world, it is good to see diatoms being honoured with their own stamp, even though false-coloured scanning electron micrographs (SEMs) rank low in my estimate of ways to depict the microscopic world.   This relates to a deeper concern about the way in which we see the world through microscopes.   It is a theme that I want to develop in a post in the near future; but it also overlaps with a broader concern about the reality of microscopic images more generally

SEMs beguile us with three-dimensional impressions of the microscopic world but they also present the transparent as opaque and everything is monochrome. The latter is a temptation to anyone with rudimentary knowledge of Photoshop to show off their skills although, in the process, they remove the image a little further away from “reality” and towards “abstraction”.   Is that a problem?   In artistic terms, the answer must be “no”, so long as we are honest about what is happening. Having abstracted the image (i.e. removed it from … ) its context, we are free to evaluate it purely in terms of artistic merit. We have had SEMs on the Hilda Canter-Lund shortlist that work as abstract images; however, one of the critera that the judges look for when drawing up the short list is to find basic authenticity and honesty in the images. That raises a whole lot of questions when dealing with the microscopic world, but does suggest a limit to the amount of image manipulation that is acceptable.   The key point, in my opinion, is to ensure that the viewer never forgets that these organisms are part of the natural world and not products of the imagination of an inferior Salvador Dali clone.

A wet afternoon in Berlin …

A happy coincidence brought me to the Gemäldegalerie in Berlin just as I was reading Laura J. Snyder’s book Eye of the Beholder, which is a joint biography of Anton van Leuwenhoek, the pioneer microscopist, and his neighbour (and, most likely, friend) Johannes Vermeer.   The Gemäldegalerie has two fine Vermeers, the culmination of a series of galleries which gives an impressive and coherent overview of the Northern Renaissance which then lead into a series of galleries showing paintings from the Dutch Golden Age.   What we see in the Northern Renaissance can be very roughly summarised as the outcome of experimentation at many levels – with oil paint rather than tempera, with non-religious subject matter and with compositional techniques such as single-point perspective.   Ideas had filtered up to the north from Italy, but the range of outputs is distinctively different from those of their southern European contemporaries.   There is no hard and fast delineation between the Northern Renaissance (roughly 16th century) and the Dutch Golden Age (roughly 17th century) but the Golden Age pictures are distinctively different. Experiments with light and perspective have borne fruit (Vermeer, of course, but also Pieter Saenredam), portraiture becomes more naturalistic and, indeed, intense (Rembrandt and Frans Hals), landscape, the “background” to many Northern Renaissance paintings, becomes a legitimate subject in its own right (Jacob van Ruisdaal, Aelbert Cuyp) and activities hitherto too mundane for consideration become legitimate subjects (Vermeer’s domestic interiors; also Pieter de Hooch).

Vermeer_at_Gemaldegalerie_N

Johannes Vermeer: Woman with a pearl necklace (1664, left) and The Wine Glass (1660, right). Both in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin.

Laura Snyder’s book offers some insights. The possibility that Vermeer used optical technology such as the camera obscura to ensure accurate depiction of perspective has been examined before.   The issue, however, may be less to do with the “tricks” that Vermeer used than with the broader intersections between artists and natural scientists at the time, both exploring new ways to “see” the natural world. Look at Jan van Eyck’s Madonna and Child, in the Gemäldegalerie. In this masterpiece of the Northern Renaissance there are aspects of perspective and the proportions of the baby Jesus that suggests that he is following tradition rather than looking afresh at the world.   The priority on direct experience over tradition is key to understanding both the scientific revolution and the art of the Dutch Golden Age and the intersection of the lives of van Leuwenhoek and Vermeer – two men who are remembered for the way in which they saw the world around them – is no mere coincidence.

van_Eyck_at_Gemaldegalerie

Jan van Eyck: Madonna in the Church (c. 1440). Gemäldegalerie, Berlin

This, however, is not the whole story.   Snyder and others (Simon Scharma’s Embarrassment of Riches springs to mind) point to the wealth of the Dutch Republic during this period and how this fuelled an art market to provide paintings for the burgeoning and prosperous middle classes to decorate their homes. The market, in other words, fuelled creativity.   This takes us down some interesting paths: is it demand, or is it competition amongst artists to satisfy the demand?   There was an interesting item on the BBC website recently that argued that creativity is, to some extent, dependent upon repetition.   The demand for art, in other words, drives the process.   Vermeer, to be fair, with only 34 paintings unambiguously attributed to him, may be the exception to this rule, but living in an environment where so many artists were simultaneously trying to solve the same problems of perspective, colour and composition must surely have fuelled his own investigations into the depiction of the world around him?

Just to be clear, the free market coupled with craftsmanship may have produced the best art in the seventeenth century.   In our age of mass production and multinational corporations the opposite may well be true. That’s a topic for another day…

Reference

Snyder, L.J. (2015). Eye of the Beholder: Johannes Vermeer, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek and the reinvention of seeing. Norton, New York and London.

John Tunnard: Nature, Politics and Science

DLI_Durham_Aug2015

The DLI Musem and Art Gallery in Durham, August 2015

I’ve written about my interests in the borderlands between science and art several times before (see ““Imagined” but not “imaginary”” amongst other posts) so an exhibition entitled “John Tunnard: Nature, Politics and Science” at our local art gallery is not something that I can ignore.   The exhibition, at the DLI Gallery, is an overview of the career of John Tunnard, a modernist painter active during the middle of the 20th century, and the relevance to a blog that focuses on algae is that the exhibition was curated by, and contains many  paintings owned by, my PhD supervisor, Brian Whitton.

Tunnard_DLI_Aug2015

John Tunnard: Nature, Politics and Science at the DLI Museum and Art Gallery, August 2015

Tunnard worked in a variety of styles, but the picture below is a good summary of his work, which often hovers on the borderlands between realism and abstraction.   There are identifiable elements within the painting (the sea on the right hand side, a moon suspended in a night sky towards the centre?) but also abstract shapes that veer towards surrealism (though, apparently, Tunnard himself did not formally associate himself with this movement).   Other pictures include references to the natural world, particularly around his home in Cornwall but, again, he pushes our expectations of what this natural world looks like, teasing us with alternative, more abstract, realities. In Cliff Tops, amongst near-recognisable flowers, we see a rock formation that bears an uncanny resemblance to the head of a whale.   Does this borderland between realism, imagination and abstraction exist in the head of the artist or the viewer, or does it depend on a synergy between the two?   Or is it out there, all the time, just waiting for an open mind to approach it?

Tunnard_Holiday_print

John Tunnard: Holiday, 1947, lithograph, 42 x 68 cm.

In his later paintings his interest in science branches out and space motifs, in particular, start to appear in his paintings. The parabolic bowl of a satellite earth station dominates some whilst one painting, from 1969, shows moon craters. This brings the issue of realism and the imagination into sharp focus: before the Apollo missions, we had ideas about the moon; from 1969, lunar landscapes had a reality against which the efforts of an artist could be verified.   As is often the case, abstraction and reality are not mutually exclusive; perception and experience play a part in determining the limits which, consequently, can vary from person to person, and from subject to subject.

The exhibition runs until 4 October 2015

References

Peat, A. & Whitton, B.A. (1997).   John Tunnard: His Life and Work. Scolar Press, Aldershot.

Whitton, B.A. (2015). John Tunnard: Nature, Politics and Science. Exhibition Catalogue, DLI Museum and Art Gallery, Durham.