The importance of the artist’s name and frames, which accompany and are just as important as the work of art, was central to this class. In both museums and the market, names have immense value. So much emphasis is placed on the identity of the artist that works by unknown or anonymous artists are often ignored. The perceived value may have little to do with the work and instead be carefully manipulated through publicity campaigns focused on the artist. This by extension shifts social value as well, as people tend to see art with higher monetary values as better. The frame of a work often has the opposite problem. Frames significantly affect how we view art but are ignored or seen as having minimal value. As we discussed, an original frame can often represent a lot of artistic effort. When art is displayed, the frame used is usually not original and affects the art differently. This adds to the differences in the ways we view art, as the frame can be considered part of the original environment in which it was meant to be displayed and used.
Author: Nick English (Page 3 of 3)
In this second class, we delved deeper into the language used when discussing art and periods of art. The Renaissance, as a rebirth of the Classical ideas which had been “lost,” inherently presents itself as “better” than what was produced between those periods. The definition of “best” art which Vasari and Palmieri establish is therefore extremely biased, as it not only focuses on specific Italian regions but also wholly discounts any art created during the Middle Ages. In history in general, the use of terms such as Gothic and vandalism to describe art inherently discredits it, as the Goths and Vandals are considered barbaric for their role in the fall of Western Rome. In truth, what people consider “good” art is based on the times in which they live and the values they hold. Renaissance art focused on themes and was created for purposes largely different from that of previous artists, but that does not make it “better.” Only by diving into the full context of a work, including the beliefs and desires of those who both created and viewed it, can we understand how and why it was created. “Progress” in art is really just change, and occurs due to shifting desires instead of a true natural “improvement.”
The focus of the first class mainly concerned defining the period and differences in the ways art was perceived at the time. The Renaissance, as a rebirth of what had “died” or been lost, is often condensed into specific areas and time periods. In reality, it developed and expanded both in Italy and around Europe, with some places experiencing it at vastly different times than others. This was interesting to discuss, as it means we must consider the intricate ways in which Renaissance art in different areas and times are connected. Goethe’s description of the museum as feeling like a “House of God” recalls both the atmosphere of modern museums and the often religious and functional original purposes of Renaissance art. Utilizing a “period eye” is therefore essential, as we view art differently than people would have when it was created. This seems like it will take constant attention and practice, as we are used to simply viewing art as solely art and not functional objects.