Philosophy of Art: The Pattern

[mortalterror]

Of course the same criticisms were often leveled against William Blake, Thomas Traherne, Glenn Gould, John Clare, etc... The point is that there are those who fall outside consideration as "artists"... who perhaps never even saw themselves as "artists" like the medieval scribes... who still are eventually recognized as "artists" by the larger arts community. How many classic films were never recognized as great art at the time of their creation? How many comic book artists or childrens' book artists/authors receive serious recognition as artists... and yet it is quite likely that "art" will repeatedly be found where it is least expected. Shakespeare... writing in a debased genre that wasn't even considered worthy of publication during his lifetime may be the greatest example.

I don't think that's quite right. As far as Shakespeare goes, who would expect a professional writer who spent a lifetime composing in the theater to be a great artist? I mean what are the odds that a guy who hobnobbs with Christopher Marlowe, Ben Jonson, Thomas Dekker, and John Fletcher would do something literary? Sure, he spoke three or four languages and read voraciously, but he never went to college!

A friend of mine tried that argument with me recently and quoted Einstein as an example. A simple unknown patent clerk comes up with some of the best scientific ideas of all time. To which I countered, "He had a PHD in Physics. His wife had a PHD in Physics. All of his friends had PHDs in Physics. He was working that job at the patent office while he was waiting for an opening at a reputable University. How much more of an insider does the guy need to be?"

With some rare exceptions, I don't know that art very frequently is found in unlikely places. I think it's found typically in the most expected places. Good art is produced by intelligent highly trained artists, who've likely devoted the majority of their lives to creating art, and they don't just come out of nowhere. That theory of the primitive man and natural talent is fine for the tourists, but Henri Rousseau is no Carravagio.

"I do not deny, Sir, but there is some original difference in minds; but it is nothing in comparison of what is formed by education."- Dr. Samuel Johnson

Art is not an accidental thing like the pattern made on a floor by falling matchsticks. It requires the highest levels of mental discipline and complex thought which infirm minds are simply incapable of. As for John Clare, do you really think of him as a major Romantic poet on the level of Keats or Shelley? I wouldn't put him on the level of Southey. Besides "I Am" how many really good poems does he even have? And he's intentionally trying to write poetry. That's worth a distinction in the context of your larger argument. He wasn't a victim of graphomania.

As far as great films going unacknowledged during the creator's lifetime, Kubrick, Fellini, Kurosawa, Bergman, Scorsese all got theirs. Picasso died a wealthy man. I think you give too much weight to the unsung heroes who occupy a relatively small place in art history. It's a very romantic view of history, but not particularly factual. Most people work their way through the conventional system of their time, and if they produce something worthwhile they get credit. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

[mal4mac]

A friend of mine tried that argument with me recently and quoted Einstein as an example. A simple unknown patent clerk comes up with some of the best scientific ideas of all time. To which I countered, "He had a PHD in Physics. His wife had a PHD in Physics. All of his friends had PHDs in Physics. He was working that job at the patent office while he was waiting for an opening at a reputable University. How much more of an insider does the guy need to be?"

Please don't just make up Einstein's life, there are several good biographies out there!

He did not have a PhD, he had a diploma, just about equivalent to a BSc today. He spent almost two frustrating years searching for a teaching post, until he had to settle for a job in in the patent office.

This is a bit like one of todays physics graduates settling for a job in IT because he can't get a job in physics.

With friends he met in Bern (also not PhDs!), he formed a weekly club to discuss science and philosophy. But, mostly, he was, and had been, reading the right people--like Henri Poincaré, Ernst Mach, and David Hume.

Mileva Marić, Einstein's wife at the time, did not have a PhD. Her academic career was disrupted when she became pregnant by Einstein & she failed her diploma.

So he graduates with a mediocre degree at a third rate uiniversity, gets his thick girlfriend up the duff, alienates his professors, drops out for two years, and ends up in a dead end job.

How much more of an outsider could the guy be?

[The Comedian]

I'd say pattern is one of the basic elements of art, sure. It can be art itself too. It seems to me like the OP's question is sort of like this one: "Is celery dinner"? Well, of course, you can make a meal of it. And, it's also part of all kinds of dinners -- chicken soup, stew, side-salad, . . . .

So, my response, in brief is that patter can be the guiding principle of some art pieces. And it can be a component (either major or minor) of others.

[mortalterror]

Mal4mac, thank you for correcting my mistake. Science is not my strong suit.

[stlukesguild]

As far as Shakespeare goes, who would expect a professional writer who spent a lifetime composing in the theater to be a great artist? I mean what are the odds that a guy who hobnobbs with Christopher Marlowe, Ben Jonson, Thomas Dekker, and John Fletcher would do something literary? Sure, he spoke three or four languages and read voraciously, but he never went to college!

Yes, Shakespeare was recognized as a professional writer, but just how well respected was the genre of theater? He knew Marlowe, Dekker, Jonson, etc... who are now certainly well respected... but it was not until Jonson published his plays that we even see anybody take the contemporary theater as a serious literary genre... as something even worth publication.

With some rare exceptions, I don't know that art very frequently is found in unlikely places. I think it's found typically in the most expected places. Good art is produced by intelligent highly trained artists, who've likely devoted the majority of their lives to creating art, and they don't just come out of nowhere. That theory of the primitive man and natural talent is fine for the tourists, but Henri Rousseau is no Carravagio.

I'd be the last one to suggest that the majority of great art comes from unexpected or "outsider" sources... but more than a small amount of it does. This may include outside influences, new genre or media, or true "outsider" artists such as the untrained or self-trained artists. William Blake would certainly fall into this classification, producing some of the most innovative art of his time (to say nothing of his poetry) outside of the mainstream art culture and with a formal art training only within a genre (print) that was seen as a minor craft, at best. Rousseau would certainly fall within this range... and no, he is no Caravaggio... but having seen almost his entire oeuvre in person I have no problem recognizing that he was most certainly a major artist... something that numerous other formally trained artists equally recognized (Picasso, Max Beckmann, Max Ernst, etc...).

Caravaggio himself is an interesting case study. His art was dismissed by many within the mainstream as "vulgar" as a result of his lack of idealization and his employment of a harsh naturalism based solely upon observation. His violent personality and long legal record didn't serve to endear him to any patrons, and it was only later artists such as Rubens and Velasquez who recognized his genius who raised his reputation.

I suspect that looking back at the second half of the 20th century from a future date it will not be many of the official "insiders" of the art world who are recognized as the great artists of the time. Film will undoubtedly be central... but even within the traditional visual art forms one suspects a lot of re-evaluations taking place. The visual arts of the last 50+ years have struggled with a rather unique situation. There has been such a passion for collecting art that the market for old masters, Impressionists, even early Modernists has been greatly picked over. In this vacuum dealers and collectors have jumped upon the latest art. As at any time it is not always the best that is immediately recognized... and in many cases the artists that can rapidly churn out a product are the ones who are swallowed up by a market that desires quantity as a means of creating demand. When you add to this mix trustees of museums who are themselves collectors of art you recognize that there are literally fortunes being invested in the creation and preservation of certain artist's reputations. This is quite removed from the literary or publishing world. J.K. Rowling's sales do not depend upon her reputation as a serious author. The work merely needs to appeal to the masses. For a collector to spend $20-million on a Jeff Koons, on the other hand, he or she need to be convinced that this artist is truly "great"... a figure who will go down in art history. There are more than a few artists and art critics who suspect that this entire "art world" will eventually come crashing down... not unlike the Dutch Tulip Craze... and a good deal of what will survive will not be the work of insiders.

What you might want to recognize is that a great deal of the art that you might recognize as serious art is not being produced by leading figures inside the the art system... and a great deal of what you would consider esoteric outsider art... if not mere mental Onanism... is what is being churned out and touted as the best art of our time.