tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33295315.post3337412952806485852..comments2023-12-24T19:41:41.261-05:00Comments on Drawing etc: True impressionsMary Adamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02928467917550027272noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33295315.post-3282029939661501852009-07-21T07:07:10.739-05:002009-07-21T07:07:10.739-05:00That's a really interesting point about sensor...That's a really interesting point about sensory perception and abstract outputs, sets one to thinking. I think I'll do some digging around on it, possibly looking into Morandi himself, his preliminary studies as you also suggested. He did a number of drawings and etchings which are quite detailed but in a different way to de Heem and Chardin, they're more graphic. And he chose different material too, simpler, and that's a significant factor in itself. It should be interesting.Mary Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02928467917550027272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33295315.post-41993807258404369842009-07-20T17:33:06.771-05:002009-07-20T17:33:06.771-05:00Your right, the older guys can certainly hold thei...Your right, the older guys can certainly hold their own and you evidence that with a couple of impressive examples.<br /><br />I guess we are saying we can't really tell what level of sensory perception was present or required on more abstract outputs is it is likely that it was more than is finally evident?<br /><br />And to add further confusion, it is possible for an artist to depict something extra to the original scene, perhaps present elsewhere or at another time etc. I'm thinking works such as maybe Van Eyck's The Arnolfini Marriage with its mirror.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnolfini_PortraitDuncan Astburyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02318752842141939176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33295315.post-28859584451918041542009-07-20T11:43:50.145-05:002009-07-20T11:43:50.145-05:00Yes, agreed, the detail in the 17th & 18th C e...Yes, agreed, the detail in the 17th & 18th C examples is output rather than input. But it's output of the kind that requires incredibly sustained and sensitive input in order to be expressed. <br /><br />Agreed too that Morandi's piece does not prove lack of sensory perception. But I chose my words carefully, and said only that "on the single question of the quantity of sensory impressions, the older guys can hold their own" -- I did not say that Morandi did not sense as much as they did. He may very well have done but chose (as you suggest) not to focus on those things. He was after something else instead, more the abstract formal qualities, very different to de Heem and Chardin. <br /><br />I've often thought that still life is the area of painting that best charts the course of art through all the ages and movements, and this post, slightly by accident, tends to support that idea.Mary Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02928467917550027272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33295315.post-69994352144445635862009-07-18T17:43:46.942-05:002009-07-18T17:43:46.942-05:00I think I agree with your original point but not c...I think I agree with your original point but not convinced that you have identified the right evidence.<br /><br />Léger's statement seems flawed to me in that any increase in external stimuli does not imply any increase in an artists cognitive abilities.<br /><br />But in looking at the details captured in a painting are we considering 'output' rather than 'input'? It is possible for a painter to be selective in what is recorded and to what level of detail. There is an analog in photography where a surface texture may be visible in great detail but that surface be captured as a silhouette, reduced to a high contrast abstraction. It doesn't mean the texture was not sensed, rather that it was not a characteristic that was chosen for reproduction.<br /><br />I like your examples, especially “Water Glass and Jug” but suggest that the still life by Morandi may not in fact prove any lack of sensory perception. To get some measure of the original perception I think it would be better to look at earlier stages in the production process. So comparing preliminary sketches and working drawings may be more revealing here?Duncan Astburyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02318752842141939176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33295315.post-79776594503384937312009-07-11T15:35:13.366-05:002009-07-11T15:35:13.366-05:00Hi Casey, I suppose it might be that, pressure of ...Hi Casey, I suppose it might be that, pressure of time, more hustle and bustle and less time for contemplation. And too, maybe the complexity of modern life makes us appreciate simpler things. The more I look at the Morandi still life the better I like it -- it's a strange contrast, don't you think?Mary Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02928467917550027272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33295315.post-19733829417634937212009-07-11T12:16:13.146-05:002009-07-11T12:16:13.146-05:00I think you are on to something. Chardin, et al, ...I think you are on to something. Chardin, et al, do give us much more to look at. But that takes time. <br /><br />Do you suppose the Modernists (apropos to the date of the quote - 1914) are painting for their sensory dep. audience? Less time? Okay, I'll paint a picture that goes in quicker.<br /><br />What do you think, Mary?Casey Klahnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08020906666248399435noreply@blogger.com