Started from turn
the pages of obsolete books about art, I am taken aback by this: Some artwork
shows themes that are full of horror as their objects. There are several
artists who make these dramatic circumstances, such as war and torture. I can
take some illustrations such as: a Renaissance Italian Antonio Pollaiuolo (The Battle of the Nudes) which depicts
nude men in bloody wars and killing each other using arrows and swords, or
another work of Antonio and Piero Pollaiuolo (The Martyrdom of St. Sebastian) which shows the sadistic torture of
a man bound at a pole and become the target of the archers ... some arrows have
even been stuck in the victim's body. Although these works are not oil
paintings (engravings), but as a natural-style drawing, at least in my point of
view I can criticize it just the same as an art painting.
The etching by
Francisco Goya, a Spanish painter (Tampoco
(Nor These), from The Disaster of War) portrays the deaths of people on the
gallows that seem to protest at the cruelty of Napoleon's invasion. Or
contemporary American artist Ben Shahn (The
Passion of Saccho Vanzetti) who painted two dead bodies lying stiffly in
open coffins.
Of course, I
understand them as the artists in the creative process, and in the form of art
as a communication..., then all of these works are valid expressions. Because I
believe, they are communicating their idealism and ideas to the audience.
However, I just
want to tell a different case. In the past decades, I have discussed with a
number of fellow artists. We talked about works represent blood, sadism,
disasters and other violence. We seemed to agree (of course there was no actual
agreement, nor was there a binding conclusion), we felt like to find the same
idea that in our opinion we should avoid making works with such themes ... Even
, one of my friends insisted it was a prohibition or taboo: Never make a
bloody, tragic, awful or scary work!
Once again, I
confirm that it is absolutely not a conclusion of an agreement. And there is no
tendency at all to discredit others who like such themes. Because, I'm sure
they have fanatical fans and followers too. Even so, we acted like a group of
romantic persons who preferred works that are fun, calm, absurd, cheerful and so
on. I don't really remember who said this, but in the past when the
conversation took place, we thought
(disclaimer: only opinion without a survey) that more audiences liked
such themes. Maybe it's a bit vulgar, I'm sorry, economically (supply-demand
theory) is more attractive to the market.
You may agree or
disagree. However, after the conversation I also have the same belief. Or more
precisely, I prefer to make unique works, which is more 'entertaining' and as
much as possible to avoid the issues of tragedy and blood. Of course, someone
might ask, is breakup include an extreme
sorrow or even a tragedy? For this one I already removed it from the taboo list
....
In the beginning
I wrote that I was stunned by something ... I will tell you this.... The
mystery is revealed through the Alfred Sisley's work that seemed to be made
between 1872-76. An era that might remind us of impressionist works. I myself
have more inclined to think that it is a very impressionist, seen from the
representation of color and light. A very beautiful painting, recording the
atmosphere of daylight at a certain spot, where the brightness of the light
reflection on water makes shadows almost similar to the surrounding objects,
such as orange buildings, white sky, slightly grayish blue, green trees. I
think the painter considers it most representative and he manages to capture
the real atmosphere, colors and light on the spot. The picture is not very
detailed, but overall our eyes can capture the substance.
I really really
like it, and always look at it for so long and full of imagination. I think
it's an atmosphere at a certain dock, in a certain place. And then I read the
caption under the picture (I deliberately did not write the title in the image
caption in my writing to give a shock effect to you). It turns out that the
title is: Flood at Port-Marly. Of
course I was shocked. Flood?! And the house I thought it was a building near
the pier was actually The Restaurant à Saint Nicolas. I have been wrong at all.
It's beyond my imagination. Why did a disaster become such a beautiful painting?!
The final
question is: Does my shock mean changing my view about the painting??? No,
absolutely it does not change anything! Sure, I don't like such theme about
disaster. I'll keep on committed to the opinion. Maybe, it feels unfair to you,
but you can't protest me..., because (I say this while laughing out loud) I
still like and admire the painting by Alfred Sisley!
 |
| The art painting (1872-76) by Alfred Sisley |
No comments:
Post a Comment