How far can you pare something down and still be able to tell what it is? If I were to say - draw me a diamond... Would you try to draw something that was sparkling and shiny? Would your sketch attempt to capture the star fire that scintillates within the depths of the stone? Would you draw each facet, showing the complex workings of the master crafters? Or would you draw a parallelogram? Would you draw a baseball diamond, simple and rectilinear?
I wondered this as we drove around this past Christmas. The deer shaped objects that populate people's yards at that time of year interest me. When deer see those wire-framed objects, do they see other deer? Are their minds able to fill in the gaps in the object, making connections between their own bodies and what is being depicted? Do they even care?
Artists and engineers have often sought for a simplicity and elegance in stripping away the extraneous to find the essence. The core.
Is there a point where it is too abstract? Where you've boiled away too much and you've lost what it is, whatever it is? And how would you do that with a work of art?
One of my favorite works of art is Liberty Leading the People. In it, a bare-breasted woman leads the people in revolt against the armies of the establishment and King Charles X. They were victorious, at least in that Charles X was the last Bourbon king of France.
But as interesting as the history is, there is deep symbolism here. Why is Liberty a woman? Is there something about women that leads people to think of Liberty? Something feminine rather than masculine? Why is she bare-breasted? Does she have to be bare-breasted? This is no Renaissance depiction of a beautiful human form (although she is beautiful, that was not the point). It is not an erotic depiction either - the dead upon which she treads ensures that. And speaking of, why is she barefoot? The others have shoes, even the double pistol wielding Gavroche... Well, one man has been stripped of his shoes, pants, and one of his socks... But that's a fairly clear symbol.
She also holds the flag in her right hand, high, aloft - a signal and a beacon. Her left holds a bayonet/musket, but it's almost forgotten, in the darkness, suggesting perhaps that Liberty must occasionally use force, but generally serves as a goal, an ideal, and a guide.
What really interests me is why the artist chose her to personify Liberty. Liberty itself is a fairly difficult thing to quantify. How would you represent Liberty? What colors would you use? What about a sculpture? A flag? A song? Could you pare it down to its essence? What would there be?
I don't know. And certainly any one's answer would be as good as any other's. But there are some depictions of things that just grab the actual essence of the thing and last.
Would a stick figure holding the French flag convey the same idea?
I wonder...
I wondered this as we drove around this past Christmas. The deer shaped objects that populate people's yards at that time of year interest me. When deer see those wire-framed objects, do they see other deer? Are their minds able to fill in the gaps in the object, making connections between their own bodies and what is being depicted? Do they even care?
Artists and engineers have often sought for a simplicity and elegance in stripping away the extraneous to find the essence. The core.
Is there a point where it is too abstract? Where you've boiled away too much and you've lost what it is, whatever it is? And how would you do that with a work of art?
One of my favorite works of art is Liberty Leading the People. In it, a bare-breasted woman leads the people in revolt against the armies of the establishment and King Charles X. They were victorious, at least in that Charles X was the last Bourbon king of France.
But as interesting as the history is, there is deep symbolism here. Why is Liberty a woman? Is there something about women that leads people to think of Liberty? Something feminine rather than masculine? Why is she bare-breasted? Does she have to be bare-breasted? This is no Renaissance depiction of a beautiful human form (although she is beautiful, that was not the point). It is not an erotic depiction either - the dead upon which she treads ensures that. And speaking of, why is she barefoot? The others have shoes, even the double pistol wielding Gavroche... Well, one man has been stripped of his shoes, pants, and one of his socks... But that's a fairly clear symbol.
She also holds the flag in her right hand, high, aloft - a signal and a beacon. Her left holds a bayonet/musket, but it's almost forgotten, in the darkness, suggesting perhaps that Liberty must occasionally use force, but generally serves as a goal, an ideal, and a guide.
What really interests me is why the artist chose her to personify Liberty. Liberty itself is a fairly difficult thing to quantify. How would you represent Liberty? What colors would you use? What about a sculpture? A flag? A song? Could you pare it down to its essence? What would there be?
I don't know. And certainly any one's answer would be as good as any other's. But there are some depictions of things that just grab the actual essence of the thing and last.
Would a stick figure holding the French flag convey the same idea?
I wonder...
Comments