Sundog Rising!
Reflections on living the life literary by the Urban Sundog
You See Art
The Bride Stripped Bare
At last count, I was up to a five point system for how we see art, particularly modern, nonrepresentational art. A quick review:
Level One: viewing the physical art object
Level Two: the viewer attempts to assign an isomorphic interpretation to the object to establish aesthetic quality
Level Three: the viewer makes a value judgement on whether the object is successful or not
Level Four: awareness that the creator may intentionally be trying to produce an object that the viewer cannot relate to isomorphically, interfering with Levels Two and Three
Level Five: purveyors, either artists or associated art industry personnel, reestablish a status as art for works created on Level Four, by providing justifications.
It’s time to make a final edit of this theory and provide a test case for myself to see if it works. Based on assumptions I made last week concerning the development of personal Taste, I would actually rearrange the list a little, and add two more components to really state what I think’s going on.
Level One: viewing the physical art object
Level Two: preliminary isomorphic interpretation; the viewer attempts to assign a meaning to the object based on relations from previous experience
Level Three: the viewer accepts the creator is intentionally trying to produce an object that the viewer cannot relate to isomorphically
Level Four: purveyors, either artists or associated art industry personnel, reestablish a status as art for works created on Level Three
Level Five: final isomorphic acceptance; the newly educated viewer makes a new evaluation of the work encompassing the meaning of the work both as a physical object and an art purveyor’s explanation of the work
Level Six: personal Taste comes into play for the viewer, affecting his or her final evaluation with input no artist or purveyor can possibly anticipate
Level Seven: the viewer makes a value judgement on whether the object is successful or not.
Sounds reasonable. Let’s give it a whirl.
I can’t write a series featuring Marcel Duchamp without finishing by talking about The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even, or The Large Glass. In French, La mariée mise à nu par ses célibataires, même, or Le Grand Verre. This is a large suspended piece on two panels of glass, constructed from oil, varnish, lead foil, lead wire, and dust. It was first exhibited in 1926, and subsequently broken while being transported. Marcel very carefully repaired it, and the original is now part of the permanent collection of the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Duchamp sanctioned three replicas which hang in Stockholm, London, and Tokyo. Marcel spent eight years constructing the piece. He himself states that nominally the piece is meant to depict an erotic encounter between the Bride in the upper panel and her nine Bachelors gathered timidly below in the lower panel.
Got that?
Here’s how I approach the work, consciously applying my own modern art viewing algorithm.
Level One: viewing the physical art object
I can’t! I’ve never seen the work in person. Which states a theme for a whole ‘nother series of essays. For the moment, we’ll have to accept the fact all I’ve ever seen of the Bride are tiny photographs nowhere near the actual size of the installation, and close ups of certain elements.
From that, I can say I’m highly appreciative of the fact the work is see through, on panels of glass you can approach from every and any angle, seeing what lies beyond the work as well as the piece itself. Also, while I find the Bride panel interesting, the main shape seems cloudlike and too amorphous for me to relate to, but there are details on the lower panel I find beautiful in their compellingly intricacy. They fascinate me, to the point of holding my attention past the point of being aware how much time is passing while I view them.
Level Two: preliminary isomorphic interpretation; the viewer attempts to assign a meaning to the object based on relations to previous experience
Nope. Can’t say I’m getting anything here … Other than memories of some really ugly failed projects in metal shops class.
Level Three: the viewer accepts the creator is intentionally trying to produce an object that the viewer cannot relate to isomorphically
It’s no urinal, but I’m certainly not going to argue with that assumption.
Level Four: purveyors, either artists or associated art industry personnel, reestablish a status as art for works created on Level Three
Marcel himself published his notes and studies on the piece in 1934 as The Green Box. People generally accept that his explanation is as obscure as the artwork itself. At some point you have to wonder just how much he’s having us on. Art that can’t be related to on the usual level, accompanied by an explanation that makes no sense on a comprehensible level. Perhaps the key lies entirely with his denotation of the piece as a “hilarious picture”.
So not much help from the artist. What about the purveyors?
There’s been a few attempts at interpretation, including some of these ideas:
A quirky Victorian physics.
Numerous mathematical and philosophical systems.
An exploration of male and female desire as they complicate each other.
“A machine of suffering.”
“Churning, agonized masturbation.”
The artist ridiculing criticism.
Enigmatic. “Mocking the solemnity of the explicator who is determined to find the key.”
I feel so much more educated.
Level Five: final isomorphic acceptance; the newly educated viewer makes a new evaluation of the work encompassing the meaning of the work both as a physical object and an art purveyor’s explanation of the work
I don’t have a problem with a piece making fun of making sense of its own self. I may not want to waste time on The Green Box, but I like looking at the Bride and would love to see it in person some day. Can I put a final meaning on the disparate aspects that appeal to me? Hell, I just like the title. That gives me enough to be going on with, finding resonance with the imagery of what the name evokes for me.
Would I like it as much if he had called it Study in Oil, Varnish, Lead Foil, Lead Wire, and Dust? I’d give it a look, but I don’t think it would stick with me. Thus justifying Level Four as a legitimate component in creating full artistic enjoyment, at least in terms of assigning a title signifier to a piece.
Level Six: personal Taste comes into play for the viewer, affecting his or her final evaluation with input no artist or purveyor can possibly anticipate
There are certain pieces that work for me because no matter how many explanations I read of what they’re supposedly about, finally the mystery of the manner in which their elements uniquely combine leave me an enduring sense of the undefinable that I find absolutely enchanting. Chekhov’s The Seagull and Thomas Mann’s Death in Venice have the same effect. That title, and what goes with it, make Marcel Duchamp’s The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even come together for me with the same effect. I don’t respond as well to calling it The Large Glass, but like others who have responded to the imagery of the main title, I do respond to the actual large pieces of glass as presented.
Level Seven: the viewer makes a value judgement on whether the object is successful or not
Works for me.
Art, you see.
"I believe that the artist doesn't know what he does. I attach even more importance to the spectator than to the artist.”
— Marcel Duchamp
*******
REALITY FICTION UPDATE!
And what is Reality Fiction, you may well ask?
Simple. The concept of the Reality Television Series translated to the printed page. 40 characters from my backlog of generally unpublished material are gathered together to compete in a different theme each Episode, with one or two characters being eliminated each sequence until there are only two left to fight it out in the final. The winner gets a short novel of their own as the grand prize.
But somehow, things always seem to go horribly wrong ...
What’s happening now?
The world of the superhero is a very psychologically active one. What motivates and drives these paranormal personalities? There’s usually some trauma lurking, not that far beneath the surface. It’s time to dig a little deeper. Join Dr. Evil John B, Psychiatrist to the Supranormal, in Episode Twenty-Six, starting this Friday.
Continuing at: http://realficone.blogspot.ca/
REALITY FICTION TOO! EPISODES TO DATE
EPISODE TWENTY-FIVE: JUNGLE ADVENTURE
“The Third Eye of the Many Legged Python”
EPISODE TWENTY-FOUR: PULP FICTION
“The Red Moon of Pango Pango”
EPISODE TWENTY-THREE: STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS
The Imp of the Reverse
EPISODE TWENTY-TWO: FAIRY TALE
Princess NoName
EPISODE TWENTY-ONE: THE WEDDING
Dearly, Beloved
EPISODE TWENTY: EXISTENTIALISM
Face the Hangman
EPISODE NINETEEN: ABDUCTION
Abduction/Apperception
EPISODE EIGHTEEN: MELODRAMA
“Terror in Tarnation! A Thrilling Narrative in Three Acts”
EPISODE SEVENTEEN: POETRY
“landescapes”
EPISODE SIXTEEN: SILLY EUROPEAN SPY SPOOF (DUBBED)
“Diet Ray of the Stars!”
EPISODE FIFTEEN: EROTIC SUPERNATURAL ROMANCE
“The Shadow of Her Passion”
EPISODE FOURTEEN: FLYING:
“Sky Calling”
EPISODE THIRTEEN: SLAPSTICK:
“The Phantom of the Werewolf”
EPISODE TWELVE: DAIRY FARMING:
“Early One Morning”
EPISODE ELEVEN: BURROUGHS:
“Chapter Nine”
EPISODE TEN: WEREWOLVES:
“The Silver Solution”
EPISODE NINE: WRESTLING:
“Suckerslam XIV”
EPISODE EIGHT: JANE AUSTEN ROMANCE:
“The Proud and the Senseless”
EPISODE SEVEN: THE JAZZ AGE:
“The Bucky-Dusky-Ruby Red Hop!”
EPISODE SIX: SUBMISSION:
“Re-Org”
EPISODE FIVE: MASQUERADE:
“The Eyes Behind the Mask”
EPISODE FOUR: SELF HELP:
“Sausage Stew for the Slightly Overweight Presents:
Some Several Suggestions Guaranteeing Success for the Mildly Neurotic”
EPISODE THREE: NUDIST:
“If You Have To Ask ...”
EPISODE TWO: FRENCH BEDROOM FARCE:
“Un Nuit a Fifi’s!”
EPISODE ONE: STEAMPUNK:
“The Chase of the Purple Squid!”
A J.H.B. Original!
No comments:
Post a Comment