Technology and the Arts

About 2 weeks ago my brother wrote saying that a professor at his alma mater, Washington University, had written a book about Gauguin's use of photographs.  I had noticed that much of Vuilard's work was photographic in nature, so much that a few pieces looked like colored photographs.  From expressions on faces and compositions in particular, his work, particularly later work, looked like photos.  But I always assumed that the impressionists and post-impressionists, in their many shades and forms, had been working from models, from sketches.  I thought they were so good at drawing that they didn't need a photograph.

This kind of information has been kept away from us so it seems almost as if it is some sort of conspiracy to hide the truth.  Probably it was to some extent.  I imagine the debates at the time something akin to the pro/anti Photoshop people arguing about whether digitally altered photographs are as pure as unaltered images--with most people trying to conceal the amount of PS they actually used on a photo.  I mean, photography was a great new technnology and the one that probably affected fine artists the most.  And they must have found themselves drawn, as we often are, between technology and "the craft".  I can see Cezanne complaining about road construction ruining the landscape, being reclusive, holding to his principles.  And then tinkering with a camera and what it might do for him.  Was his "poker players" also from a photograph.  I suspect it was.

Now, we it's all coming out.  I did a search and found these photos on the discussion forum: http://www.fogonazos.es/2006/11/famous-painters-copied-photopraphs_06.html  (the comments are as interesting as the pictures)(might have to view pictures here)http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid=3112The amazing thing is that doing a search for the topic, this (published back in 2006) is the ONLY information that I have found about the new scandal.   In 6 years, nobody really chased the story, it seems.  Is it because we just don't want our beliefs shattered?  Is this one of the extraterrestrials that we just don't want to know exists?  For myself it's a bit disappointing.  No.  It changes the history game entirely.  It's  a real reality shift.   Now, when I look at the works of Degas, I know longer see a master.  I think about those 60 something paintings of Mt. St. Victoire, and wonder how many were from photographs.

  But I also appreciate the importance of the camera.  This semester my year 7-10 students' second assignment was to work from a black and white photo of a famous painting, to redraw it and then use their own colors.  I chose this assignment because I remembered how, as a high school student, I enjoyed making watercolor paintings from the photographs we were developing in photography class.  It was turning the different values of a black and white photograph into colors that really taught me about the relationship between value and color, something that dominated oil painting at the turn of the century.Now, looking at the fauvist paintings, I pretty much assume that Andre Durain was doing what I was doing.  Making a color statement from a black and white photograph which isn't as bad as it seems at first.  In fact the farther we get away from the impressionists, the easier it is to accept.  But then there are other kinds of technology that come into play and cause more disappointment.And this reminds me of "why, I didn't know that" moment.  One of my students while giving a presentation on Abstract Expressionism noted that Franz Kline had used an opaque projector to enlarge "doodles" onto large canvases so that they no longer resembled the original drawing but were now giant abstractions.  The fact that he was using a projector that friend de Kooning was using at the time to enlarge some of his figure drawings means that this "hidden use" of technology extends on into the 40's and 50's.   The real bothersome thing about all of this is how the whole "industry" lacked transparency in describing how works were completed, especially in a time when how a work was completed was so important.   Art enthusiests fell in love with action painting because it was "action" painting, energetic, spontaneous--angry would make it even better wouldn't it?  In this quote by Kline, I think we can all feel a bit conned:I’m not a symbolist. In other words, these are painting experiences. I don’t decide in advance that I’m going to paint a definite experience, but in the act of painting, it becomes a genuine experience for me. It’s not symbolism any more than it’s calligraphy. I’m not painting bridge constructions, skyscrapers, or laundry tickets

.
So, was it the sketching in the phone book pages that eventually became a giant abstract blow up that was the painting experience?  Probably.  I like to think so as I find more truth in basic sketching than in most artist efforts.   In viewing the paintings that came from photographs we can at least take heart that the artists were not copying the photographs.  The van gogh self portrait doesn't even look like the person in the photo, really.  And Cezanne's standing figure seems whittled from a piece of wood rather than copied from a photo.  Gauguin's two figures look more inspired from a photo than drawn from one leaving one to question if he was making changes purposely to comfort himself-- to say to himself, "See, old Gauguin.  Your not copying a photo."   But perhaps it is Degas who is being the real modernist, arranging separate photos into a believable composition and then creating a painting.   There's not a lot we do today that is more creative than this.   And in a way bringing the greats down to earth is comforting.