Skip to main content

Abstract

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...

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ephesus

Paul got around. Ephesus is right on the Aegean Sea, on the coast of present-day Turkey. Yesterday he was in Galatia, which was much more towards the middle of Turkey. And when he actually wrote these letters, he was in Rome... So the man could travel. He probably walked. Today's item of interest comes from chapter one in Ephesians. Verses 18 and 19 are particularly interesting: 18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power This is not the first time Paul talks about an inheritance. In Galatians he talks about the inheritance that comes of being part of the Abrahamic Covenant. He notes that we are joint-heirs through and with Christ. In Ephesians, he uses the word "adoption" - that we are adopted as the Children of Jesus Chris...

Engaged

Three Dog Night got it wrong.  One is not the loneliest number. They were more accurate when they said Two can be as bad as one.  I really wonder how people can survive Without being fully engaged. How they live through each day Without the intimacy I so very much crave... Maybe I am unusual in my desire  To have this intimacy, To want to feel that soul So close to my own Sharing light and warmth, Sharing love and passion, Sharing life. Alas! Alas! Alas! For when I do seek to share It is often only to be rebuffed Denied Or used up, Sucked dry, And left an empty husk.  I want SO MUCH to share And all I have is the cold, digital world Of typing out a blog.

The Other Art

I'm not sure we appreciate photography as much as we do other art forms. Part of this comes from the reality that surrounds and permeates a photograph - it's very, very real, and the photographer strives for clarity and crispness in the representations. Perhaps this is why black and white images continue to be relevant - they strip away extraneous information (color) and leave us with something that is at once familiar and also non-existent - for nothing exists in black and white. Nothing. I also think that pictures are becoming too common-place... Everyone has a camera in their pocket, and while that's a very democratic thing (everyone can express themselves in a picture easily and readily, and can find an audience for these images, which are casually taken and casually viewed, and perhaps just as casually forgotten) I think that we embrace that casual attitude, and it spills over to all aspects of the media, making it impotent. So I read this article this morning: h...