OUAN401-Context of practice: Lecture 2- History of the image

This week wednesday's lecture focused the history of the image , from the very beginning of human existence to the age of post-modern and contemporary art. Through it , Richard introduced us to the idea of how images permanently make lives, thoughts and feeling last forever ( sometime a more literal sense than other )and how it can both create and destroy ideas

Truly humans are amazing at creatures at depicting their surrounding and something that really interest me through this lecture was seeing the way we do it and how everything has ended up being some sort a loop : We see how the rough-edge style and spirituality of the cave paintings of Lascaux (even though there probably wasn't a sophisticated caveman who intended it) influence the free-form and design choices of modern art , (almost as a way to "connect" back to nature) after a long period of celebrating realism and the human form of the classical Greek and the Renaissance.

But that fact aside, what really interested me the most was seeing the power of the image , and seeing how it can affect the course of human history and human behaviour. This was presented through stories of wars , for example the Vietnam War , and how photographs like "the Napalm girl" by photographer Nick Ut changed the American public opinion on the war which eventually led to the U.S withdrawal out of Viet Nam and how I now only see the red flag and yellow star of the north as my Vietnam ( I'm Vietnamese, yes) not the one of the south. Or for a more broader view, the battle of art between the US and the Soviets during the cold war , where the CIA uses American abstract expressionist such as Jackson Pollock , Mark Rothko and their art as a weapon against the East to demonstrate the West's freedom of thinking and creativity again Soviet realism's rigidness and confinement. Funny thing is , to quote president Truman on this subject : "If that's art, then I'm a Hottentot"

During the 50s and 60s , the American public actually had extremely negative views on modern art and the quote above was the sum of the popular views at the time. But as time moved on , we see an increase in such style and method, still ridiculous and mad as it is, appearing museums,exhibitions and the fashion runways, described as representing different ideas and being critiqued / praised by many which led to another interesting topic of the lecture: the authority of the institution. Being a very "practical" artist myself , I can't never get my head around how people create and enjoy modern art, especially the recent ones. And not just modern art these day, but other abstract forms as well like cubism. Yet you see people flocking galleries, the ones you would call "art hipsters" , standing in front of a black/white canvases with nothing else on it and "appreciate" it, I DON'T GET IT.



That's when Richard brought up this point , the "institution"here : the art galleries , the museums, colleges takes all these art work, which entitled them to be "important" in our eyes, and perhaps more than they should be. So when someone "feels" something in front of a piece of work like those above, are they really feeling anything ? Or is that feeling just came from what is expected of you to have. I've watch this video about an illusionist once , who tried to make people feel "hot" just by asking them " are you feeling hotter?" and he succeeded many times, so is that something that is happening within our mind in front of a piece of work ?

 Richard also suggest another very interesting example,this picture down here of people seeing the Mona Lisa.




Undoubtedly the most famous painting in the world , which sits behind a bulletproof glass and occupied a whole wall for itself, yet till this day , no one really knows why .In my personal view, Leonardo's "Last supper" and classical Greek sculpture works would be superior both in scale and in technique, yet when people get to the Lourve, (myself included ), the first instinct is to go find the Mona Lisa. So just what is it about her that made the painting so famous that wether you're an artist or historian or just the common bloke from the street, you instantly referred to it as a masterpiece( and no its not that "mysterious smile" ) .Sure, it is an extraordinary piece that demonstrate Leonardo's talent , but like I said, judging from personal views, there are others that are better.Thats exactly it ,that's the power of institution feeding you that information ! Its psychology , its the mentality of being curious at what others are seeing.Its the bulletproof glass, the giant wall, the place inside the Lourve, the countless referencing in textbooks and pop culture alike that solidify the Mona Lisa place in our minds.The same thing can be said for the image of Che Guevara, of the Napalm girl,....

    

The popularity of the image is greatly enhanced by the authority of the institution 

So can the current art forms, especially modern art have an attractive attribute and the power to explain itself , sure it can, but otherwise the general public views on art is undoubtedly driven by the authority of the institution and not by the art itself. So thinking about how the next trend/ move in the art world can address this issue is intriguing to say at least!