Skip to main content

Art Canon

My mind has been blown - the old painting masters Cézanne, Rembrandt and Monet are not all of what I thought they were. I recently discovered that the traditional art historical canon is biased and has created an unrepresentative view of creativity and artistic styles. It has left out entire groups of people only later to place them in subgroups. The traditional canon for art history has favored upper class European white male artists. It is interesting to see that art history has been governed by a select group who overtime decided what qualifies as great works of art and artistic genius. The definition leaves out women and minorities who have not had access to the same resources as men did such as supplies or education but even so they were able to create with items more accessible to them. Yet they are left out of traditional canon as if they never existed. How can we understand culture, history and politics by ignoring these groups of people? - Art is not only a piece of individual expression but a part of culture. Analyzing pieces can help us understand things about society that we may not be able to glean from other sources for history is not rigid but based on interpretation of primary sources; newspaper articles, books, media and artwork created in different time periods. We have to interpret these things in conjunction with the lived experience of the individual who created them. Which means for art understanding their unique identity and how it may have played into what they chose to depict in their artwork.

The good news is that Yale is scraping the old canon for a more inclusive canon with the hope that other universities will follow suit. Perhaps it has taken this long for this change because they are having trouble unifying and determining what information and knowledge they can assume is universal between Art History departments across different schools.

When I say that the old masters are not all of who I thought they were it does not mean I can't learn from them or what I have learned is entirely useless, it simply means that it may not have as much weight as I previously thought - I am taking them off of the pedestal so that I can discover and uncover artists who have not been given attention. It only makes me want to broaden my perspective and learn from others who have great skills although they may not have fit the traditional cut of what great art means. Here are some pieces from artists I have discovered so far, past and present: 
Judith and her Maidservant, Artemisia Gentileschi, 1613-14

Lanscape, Anna Molka Ahmed, 1970

Willem van Heythuysen, Kehinde Wiley, 2005

Village Scene, Amrita Sher-Gil, 1938




For scholarly reading on art canon see: Linda Nochlin, Nanette Salomon, and Griselda Pollock. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Film Review: "The Artist is Present" Marina Abravomic

Recently, I attended a special film screening of "The Artist is Present". It surveys Marina Abravomic's artistic endeavors and focuses on one of her biggest shows at MoMA. Abravomic is a performance artist in which her body becomes her canvas in a sense. Her early art is shocking because she plays with bodily harm to herself - nothing is an act or an illusion. She had a piece where she was laying in the middle of a pentagram lit on fire and passed out from the fumes. She even carved one onto her abdomen in another performance. The early pieces make me wonder where is the line drawn between art and self-harm? Can a form of self harm even be considered art or is bodily harm only a maladaptive coping mechanism? As both an artist and a former Crisis Counselor, this is a difficult question to grapple. As an artist I cannot deny her expression nor can I speak whether her performance art that involved harm to herself was out of a place of pain or not. As a former Crisis...
Post a Comment
Read more

Color Matching

Did you know that you can essentially make all colors out of just the primary colors? Greys and whites can be added. Color matching is so interesting yet so difficult. The same thing applies to skin tones. All variations can be made using just combinations of red, blue and yellow. Skin tones happen to be neutral colors which are all basically made from mixing opposite colors. Something interesting to that I learned is we have a tendency to mix skin tones that are brighter than they really are. It kind of makes sense considering that humans are extremely good at detecting faces and human silhouettes. We can even pick out an image of a face when there is not one. I think as a result of us being such social creatures we see skin tones as more lively than they really are. So in order to balance this problem greys can be added to tame down the overly brightness but you also don't want the greys to overpower either. Also white should only be added at the end for highlights. Here are exa...
Post a Comment
Read more

Face Study: Proportions

In revisiting portraiture I have realized that I made errors in my facial proportions. There are something I utilized that were correct such as knowing that the space between each eye is equivalent of one eye. The main thing I realized I had wrong this whole time was that foreheads are half the length of a face. It baffles me and I think its because in my minds eye a forehead takes up such a small space because hair is covering it. With faces I think it is especially difficult to separate what our minds eye thinks a face is. Which seems counterintuitive to me because we are hardwired to detect faces easily and can even spot images that appear like a face even when nothing is present. Maybe because faces are so imbedded into our minds we tend to generalize them and therefore have a hard time separating our generalizations of what a face is supposed to look like from the realities of the actual structures of the face. Somethings to keep note: From the top of the head to the top of t...
Post a Comment
Read more