Latest Posts

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query editorial. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query editorial. Sort by date Show all posts
 By Michael A. Vidalis  
Shizuoka Press and Broadcasting Center  Kenzo Tange. Photograph by Jonathan Savoie
Shizuoka Press & Broadcasting Center by Kenzo Tange.
Photograph by Jonathan Savoie

Architecture as an art is required to be original, or at least it should strive to be. In the pragmatics of architectural practice though, one realizes that a host of conditions or determinants often interfere or intervene, so the resulting project is a far cry from it. Let alone that so called signature projects are equally unattainable for most designers.

It is rather uncontested, that a work of architecture in order to stand apart requires the simultaneous existence of two conditions: a gifted designer, as well as, a receptive or visionary client. It is very rare for excellence to be achieved otherwise. One of course can analyze this ad nauseam, thinking of all possible variations or sub conditions, but of no avail.

On occasion an architect has been successful in steering a client towards his philosophy, or convincing him of the merits of his ideas, but this is an entirely different subject, opening Pandora's Box. It is the debate having to do with the role of the architect, or his "obligation" to steer the uncultured masses... See Adolf Loos' "The Poor Little Man" and the notion of Gesamtkunstwerk. 

Interpersonal relationships are indeed rather complex. The architect-client relationship is deemed pivotal to the success of a project. Historically, patrons of the arts and architecture such as the Medici family in the Renaissance were instrumental in the creation of great works of art. To a lesser extent, men of great vision are still found today, providing the much needed impetus to grand or original works. 

It is often expressed by architects that a limited budget presents an impediment to creativity or their uninhibited artistic expression. To see how erroneous this view is, we need only bring to mind acknowledged architectural marvels that were accomplished with limited means, such as the little Schullin Jewelry store in Vienna, a project that was identified with the post-modern movement (Hans Hollein, architect, 1982). Or plenty of contemporary projects in the L.A. area, by architects employing humble materials in the elevations of the structure (For instance, see the Container House by Peter Demaria - 2006, the M House by Xten architects - 2004, or the Schmalix residence by Fung + Blatt architects - 2000). 

Schullin jewelery storeAnother objection raised has to do with the limited time allowed to design or construct the project. What about though fast-track design or fast-track construction? Lastly, an additional objection by architects has to do with the limitations presented by building codes. Again, being forced by limitations or constraints one has to reshape, reinterpret, reinvent or rethink the problem or its parameters at hand, thus presenting an opportunity for the new to surface. 

The list of architects that have achieved excellence in original artistic expression is long: Sant' Elia, Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe, Philip Johnson, Robert Venturi, Tadao Ando, Zaha Hadid, Saana... 

Analyzing the work of the above, or that of other architects - acknowledged leaders of a fresh approach in the 'arts' - pioneers in their own right (not only in the mind of critics but by general acclaim), we may try to analyze the underlying common factors, if any. How did these men develop, why did they stand out, and how did they contribute to a valid architectural discourse? How did they leave their indelible mark? How did the avant-garde come about? 

Some support that uniqueness is the reward, the eventual fruition of many years of plain hard work and insistence, questionable though as far as architecture is concerned, or for the arts as a whole as we shall later see (isn't the invalidity of this reasoning apparent when we attempt to justify the artistic success of many young or 'inexperienced' creators? As an example, one of the most monumental edifices ever built, La Grande Arche de la Defense (1982- 1989), in Paris, was the result of an international architectural competition with 400 entries from 40 countries. Winner, an unknown Danish architect, Otto von Spreckelsen, whose only experience was limited to designing his own home and two churches in his country! Or, the enigmatic house Venturi designed for his mother, Chestnut Hill, Pennsylvania (1962), his second built work). 

It is deemed necessary to refer to Professor Pavlos Mylonas. During his reception at the Academy of Athens and awarding of Membership, Mylonas said: "...in the most creative 20th Century, the Greek architectural family has treaded a path just parallel to the Modern Movement, as happens with most other not large [small] countries. Worth mentioning not because remarkable Greek designs have not entered the International Pantheon, but because - the subject tonight being Theory - since the days of the late Greek architectural aesthetician Panayotis Mihelis, basically no noteworthy Greek contribution has been made to contemporary international architectural thinking. And this, perhaps due to the fact that in our country the presuppositions were not in place timely, that could lead to the realization of an innovation ["modernism"]". (1.) 


Lithograph No Quiren by Goya
No quiren. (1810-1820) Goya  


Today I took in Manfred Kirchheimer’s “Art Is … the Permanent Revolution” which is both social commentary and instructional art documentary.  Here is a collaborative trio of a painter and lithographer; a woodcutter and a painter; and an etcher. These artists are creating their own prints and discussing the roles that many famous artists played in putting forth the ideas of the people in times of political strife. Names you may know from art history HonorĂ© Daumier, Francisco de Goya, ThĂ©odore GĂ©ricault, Eugène Delacroix, Otto Dix, Edgar Degas and Édouard Manet turned to the form of lithography printing as this was a medium popular in France during the mid-nineteenth century. Not only useful for producing amusing images, but also for giving illustration to the spirit of the revolutions of the era.

Manet litho of execution of emperor Maxmilien
L'exĂ©cution de l'emperor Maxmilien. (1867) Manet  


Political propaganda and the concerns of the working class were often subject material in lithographic prints of this time.  Artists often take it upon themselves to show the consciousness of the society they are part of, the struggles of the masses therein transformed into an easily understood form.  It is pointed out, of the famous names mentioned, artists did not typically know how to do the printing.  The artists would create images and rely on a master printer to produce the final result.

Daumier lithograph of the cost of liberty being life.
Celui-la, on peut le mettre en liberte! Il n'est plus dangereux. (1837) Daumier  

Russians returning from war by Gericault litho print
Retour de Russie (1818) GĂ©ricault 

 Sociopolitical focus on the past depicted with lithographic prints, is counterpointed by the artists in this film, who are also here creating present-day statements of their own such as the subject of recent use of torture and in putting forth the "oil for blood" war concept that is weighing upon the minds of many modern Americans. 

Although I am a great appreciator of history and especially of the role that art plays along the timeline of humanity, I enjoyed the technical aspects as well.  Multiple forms of lithographic printing are being demonstrated as the artists are discussing the past and the present day social relativity that runs deep in the art of printmaking.  There is even mention of the history - from the origins of the rare and precious limestone only found in Bavaria to the tusche method - also considered traditional, in the sense that 20th century technological advances have greatly changed and further developed the process of creating such prints.  In my opinion, most artists would find this an enriching return on an 80 minute investment.  Check Rotten Tomatoes for reviews, and also you may view the trailer here : 

                                   


Available on Amazon:



Ref:

If you are reading this, chances are you know an art snob.  There is nothing new about snobs, they have always existed and are found everywhere. Some are of a specific type and some stand out more than others. All the same, as I am starting out in this article, know that snobbery is common and nothing special.  So nobody should be upset by this article, except maybe a few vulgar snobs, as I draw focus on the particular traits and behaviors of the art snobs and how they serve the betterment or detriment of artists. In the course of this ranting editorial you may sort out for yourself if you the reader are an art snob. Also, if so what of it?  

The basic definition for a snob is “a person who believes himself or herself an expert or connoisseur in a given field and is condescending toward or disdainful of those who hold other opinions or have different tastes regarding this field.”(Dictionary.com)  Art snobbery is demonstrated in ungracious intolerance of creativity that does not conform to a narrow set of parameters.  Said parameters are usually along the lines of “your art is not as good as mine.” Art is art, how good it actually is has to depend wholly on opinion.  To pioneer into new ways of creating art or to make truly exceptional art, one must not be afraid to leave the safety zone.

Now there are also art snobs of the deeper variety.  The metaphysical types that believe all art has to have a message or symbolic meaning or else it is just decoration.  These type snobs seem to take all the fun and joy out of artwork.  It is true for some of them there must be a poem hidden in the imagery represented. There is nothing wrong with this principle, but to expect it from every artwork as a qualification of being true art, well if they cannot find the beauty in something simple that is their loss really. It would seem to me an exhausting level of snobbery to maintain.
elitist photo:  elitist.jpg
Now, art snobbery does not stop there, there are those snobs that have reached the pinnacle and can look down in disdain on an entire medium. Glassworks are a common target of the run-of-the-mill art medium snob.  Just because it is not what they use it is their mind that glass is not a legitimate artistic medium. I am sure you can think of a few odder notions among the snobs who are ever-grumpy about other peoples’ art medium choices.

If you have had enough exposure to the art community you know there are traditionalists that cling to their old trusty methods and mock any newer options as a lesser way of making art.  Think: Oil vs. Acrylic paint, Film vs. Digital photography, Acoustic vs. Electric musical instruments, all Visual Art vs. Digital art.  Sometimes there is concern with the removal of the pure human interaction with their physical work. There is something to be said for this, even though it is in our nature to embrace always new technology and art will reflect this.  But when painters mock watercolorists as only producing under-paintings they are admitting their minds are stuck in the time period when that was all that watercolors were used for.  If they don’t see true art in watercolor then they are showing a blindness in their snobbery. Another example would be photographers who give others working with green-screen backgrounds a hard time when really their snobbery is based in a rejection of using technology.  And in an instance where the newer digitally produced six-color giclee printing produces finer results than standard four-color lithographs, even though the newer printing from digital is better, this is not how a litho-snob would see things.

There is yet another type of art snob who will merely glance at pictures on the walls, with a rude and hateful expression as if they smell something bad.  This is really the type of snob that makes me wonder why they even bother showing up.  When it comes time to share their opinions, a snob will always consider that anyone that does not share the same skills automatically has invalid opinions about art.   Knowledge or expertise on the subject is the only thing that matters in their minds.  Some snobs will go so far as to tell other artists what to do with their work, or even say that a piece is “unfinished’ in their eyes. Art snobs feel that they possess additional senses or insights superior to “ordinary” people.  This translates as the snobs thinking they are the only ones with exclusive appreciation of what makes a true work of art.

Photograph snob girl by volkan kovancısoy on 500px
snob girl by volkan kovancısoy on 500px
WINE SNOB
photo: Pedro Ribeiro Simões on Flickr

Another thing that typically upsets an art snob is when the term “style” is used to describe the work of an artist.   Saying “approach” in place of saying “style “is the snob-tell here. The art snob enjoys immediately correcting someone stating an artist demonstrates a specific style by affirming that it is not style but reaction and approach to subject matter. They get in quite a tizzy when they hear the word “fine” art as well.  This is like a presupposition in their minds. This kind of self-righteous opinion can only come from a self-perceived walking encyclopedia of art. Otherwise, I can simply put it: they are mincing words, and not very well.

There are cliches among the art snobs; it is a bit like a group of severely opinionated art-gangsters. They are often seen wearing turtle necks with tight pants, have extreme contempt or admiration for French Artists, believe they hold such expertise as to never be impressed with any contemporary art pieces and usually have a background in wine snobbery – that could be the introduction to snobbishness.


Ultimately, the defining trait of snobs is that they are imitators. They adopt certain manners and world-views of a social class of people to which they do not by right belong. Snobs crave being members of an elite group and close ranks to those who do not conform.  So despite their rude behavior the snob is a pitiful, insecure person.  How do they serve the art world with their pretentious airs? A person who knows they are an expert does not need to patronize or act condescendingly towards others. The good bit that I draw from the existence of art snobs is this: they deliver a point for sake of comparison. As an artist it is important to believe in yourself and find reassurance in the fact that you're not just a sheep following the herd making the same art everyone else is making.  Even though they think they are special, the snobs represent the herd or herd-mentality, and without them, artists would lack a refined example of how NOT to be.


sheep photo: sheep sheeppage.jpg