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

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...

Lucky!

So Tomorrow is Amie's birthday. The 12 th is Andy's. The 14 th is Alex's. And the 26 th is mom's. Happy birthday everyone. I recently found that a member of our ward has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic cancer has a survivability rate of less than 5% and you never, ever kick it, even if you live. Once diagnosed, people are expected to live about six months. My wife and I were talking about this wonderful woman. There are very few (too few) people in this world who shine. Literally. This sister shines with a light that is perceptible and discernible . The world will literally be a darker place without her in it. Life is short, folks. Too short for hard feelings, too short for pain and misunderstanding. I love you all so much. Sorry this one is such a downer... I don't mean to be lugubrious on your birthdays... I consider myself lucky to be your brother. You have and continue to bless me and my family in many ways, for which I will be eternally gra...

Excommunication

My heart is heavy this morning. I read that Kate Kelly and others are being brought up on Church disciplinary action. For those who are unfamiliar with the process/proceedings of LDS Church discipline, it can be a bit mystifying. There are several levels of censure that the Church may impose. These range from a simple removal of some privileges for a short period of time to the most severe action - excommunication. When one is excommunicated, the person's membership in the Church is terminated. It is a very extreme measure, and for the faithful it can be a very difficult thing to consider. What people don't understand - what is nearly impossible for someone outside the proceedings to understand - is the amount of love felt. It's discipline. It's intended to be harsh (at times). And it's intended to be unpleasant. But it is done with love and care for the person. Since excommunication is such an extreme measure, it is really only very rarely applied. There are ...