THINKING, EXPRESSING AND SEEING MORE
I am reading a fascinating book. Wassily Kandinsky «Du Spirituel dans l’Art et dans la Peinture en particulier» . It took me quite some time to find that the book had been translated into English - «Concerning the Spiritual in Art» - I certainly recommend it to those of you who are interested in abstraction and in a certain respect, philosophical concepts on colour, form, music and abstraction. I most certainly am.To read further, try....http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20of%20art/kandinskytext.htm
There are many comments concerncing the book in English, French, German... I don't entirely agree with those who feel that art cannot be expressed in words.
I am not an artist but do feel that if you relate to art in any way, some words need to be found to describe feelings. Doesn’t an artist have to express how his art works and isn’t there a spirituality in such an expression? Kandinsky’s description of colour, shapes, abstraction and many of this related to art or artists in different areas, is something I understand and feel completely. Why do I like what is verging on the modern in Manet? Or Cezanne? Or Bonnard ? Or .....quite simply because my imagination has to see something else. Something which perhaps is not there at all for any other spectator. Something I feel inside me. Why do colours react on us as they do? Shapes? A triangle which mounts rather than a triangle on its side? Something which seems to rise and go forward rather than lie flat and be squeezed out of a frame....I am not going to give the list of all the modern artists I like so much...you are beginning to know my tastes.
Kandinsky is helping me more than I can say to understand why or why I don't like a picture, an installation, a sculpture, a form or to help me express my feelings ......Many of the artists we know were «before their time....» even today when we go to an exhibition such as Manet or Matisse, their «modern» work is - it would seem often - given a cold shoulder. Not realistic enough and yet there I am - gazing at it - seeing so much and only giving a glance at what I know. It’s like music. Listening to classical music is of course a very moving experience but listening to contemporary, I have to concentrate to pick up the colours, the shapes and the movement of the music....classical music is comforting but how much do I really listen to today? It’s my housework relaxation.....
So what am I talking about? Today I went with Pierre to see «Flesh and Marble» at the Rodin Museum. All this work is in marble which is hard and cold and yet apparently becomes warm and supple beneath an artist’s chisel. It is also considered to be the material which is closest to flesh. My love of scultpure turns more to Henry Moore rather than to Auguste Rodin and yet, last year was it (?) I photographed these in the gardens - they both spoke to me....that was it.
Why do some sculptures touch me even in a visceral manner and others seem to be so well known or so realistic that they leave no room for my imagination or fantasy to go further. It is certainly Rodin’s «non finito» style which I prefer. Or as so many artists say, «something comes out of the material before my eyes». Wood, paper, marble........
There is a sculpture of Rodin’s which was highly contested in its day. Balzac. Rodin described it as a portrait of the writer’s persona rather than a physical likeness. It was a commissioned work but came under fierce criticism in 1898 and was rejected to find its place today (but now cast in iron) on the Boulevard Montparnasse. I have walked by it many times but somehow it was hidden. It was on a walk with Claude a couple of years ago when I «discovered» it and heard the story. Now I stop and look each time I go by. It’s a statue which makes me ask «who was this man - really».
Today, there were 5 or so in a series of many which I went back to look at. They jump out of the marble. They are sensual. I want to touch them....but how realistic are they?
There are many comments concerncing the book in English, French, German... I don't entirely agree with those who feel that art cannot be expressed in words.
I am not an artist but do feel that if you relate to art in any way, some words need to be found to describe feelings. Doesn’t an artist have to express how his art works and isn’t there a spirituality in such an expression? Kandinsky’s description of colour, shapes, abstraction and many of this related to art or artists in different areas, is something I understand and feel completely. Why do I like what is verging on the modern in Manet? Or Cezanne? Or Bonnard ? Or .....quite simply because my imagination has to see something else. Something which perhaps is not there at all for any other spectator. Something I feel inside me. Why do colours react on us as they do? Shapes? A triangle which mounts rather than a triangle on its side? Something which seems to rise and go forward rather than lie flat and be squeezed out of a frame....I am not going to give the list of all the modern artists I like so much...you are beginning to know my tastes.
Kandinsky is helping me more than I can say to understand why or why I don't like a picture, an installation, a sculpture, a form or to help me express my feelings ......Many of the artists we know were «before their time....» even today when we go to an exhibition such as Manet or Matisse, their «modern» work is - it would seem often - given a cold shoulder. Not realistic enough and yet there I am - gazing at it - seeing so much and only giving a glance at what I know. It’s like music. Listening to classical music is of course a very moving experience but listening to contemporary, I have to concentrate to pick up the colours, the shapes and the movement of the music....classical music is comforting but how much do I really listen to today? It’s my housework relaxation.....
So what am I talking about? Today I went with Pierre to see «Flesh and Marble» at the Rodin Museum. All this work is in marble which is hard and cold and yet apparently becomes warm and supple beneath an artist’s chisel. It is also considered to be the material which is closest to flesh. My love of scultpure turns more to Henry Moore rather than to Auguste Rodin and yet, last year was it (?) I photographed these in the gardens - they both spoke to me....that was it.
 |
| Add caption |
Why do some sculptures touch me even in a visceral manner and others seem to be so well known or so realistic that they leave no room for my imagination or fantasy to go further. It is certainly Rodin’s «non finito» style which I prefer. Or as so many artists say, «something comes out of the material before my eyes». Wood, paper, marble........
There is a sculpture of Rodin’s which was highly contested in its day. Balzac. Rodin described it as a portrait of the writer’s persona rather than a physical likeness. It was a commissioned work but came under fierce criticism in 1898 and was rejected to find its place today (but now cast in iron) on the Boulevard Montparnasse. I have walked by it many times but somehow it was hidden. It was on a walk with Claude a couple of years ago when I «discovered» it and heard the story. Now I stop and look each time I go by. It’s a statue which makes me ask «who was this man - really».
 |
| Balzac in the Bd Montparnasse |
 |
| Balzac in the Rodin museum garden |
Today, there were 5 or so in a series of many which I went back to look at. They jump out of the marble. They are sensual. I want to touch them....but how realistic are they?
 |
| The hand of God 1896 (?) |
 |
| Lovers hands 1904 |
 |
| Fleurs dans une vase - Flowers in a vase - 1907 |
 |
| Jeux de Nymphes - games of Nymphs 1900-1910 |
 |
| Fish woman before 1915 |
Commentaires