Art connoisseurs will probably be mortified by my untutored tastes and ignorant views but in truth I possess no appreciation for art especially where it bears little resemblance to reality. In contrast to this, art aficionados are able to divine a whole substrata of implied meanings from the brush strokes, the colours and the textures whereas I view a painting as a literal impression and not by some figurative interpretation of what is being viewed. Interesting as their observations might be, they are of little interest to me.

Main picture: The Night watch by Rembrandt van Rijn

For two millennia, the pre-eminent and most influential painters and artists of their era followed a well-worn path in exercising their art. Concepts such as beauty and resemblance were key attributes to be depicted. In no small measure the human form especially in its naked state was portrayed in an almost idealistic shape much like American actresses today embody the perfect female physique. For instance never during this era would cellulite engorged thighs be shown nor even a deformed limb be seen.

 

Gradually but ineluctably this view of art was to be changed commencing with the Renaissance when the bounds of art were challenged for the first time. As the major patrons of the arts during this epoch were the Church and the nobility, the opportunity to break these bounds in their entirety never arose. Inasmuch as the artist was able to, they did so. Even in the religious works such as the Last Supper, convention was broken by Leonardo da Vinci but only subtly such as the twist of a hand or the seating arrangements. Nothing more radical could be attempted.

Rembrandt van Rijn

One of the first painters to break with this tradition was the acclaimed Dutch painter, Rembrandt van Rijn but which he would pay the ultimate price: penury, rejection and insolvency.

 

Rembrandt, the son of a miller in Leiden beside the River Rhine hence the surname van Rijn [literally of the Rhine], decided at the tender age of 14 that he wanted to be a painter. In order to do so, he had to relocate to Amsterdam where he became apprenticed to a number of painters – Jacob van Swanenburgh, Pieter Lastman and finally Jacob Pynas after which he started painting for his own account.

In 1629 Rembrandt was discovered by the statesman Constantine Huygens who procured for Rembrandt important commissions from the court of The Hague. As a result of this connection, Prince Frederick Hendrik continued to purchase paintings from Rembrandt until 1646.

 

Despite these royal commissions, his major source of income was paintings for the various wealthy merchants and purveyors of goods in Amsterdam. From a tranquil fishing port, with the expansion of the Dutch empire especially in the Orient, Amsterdam had become a bustling thriving town and the destination of the trade. With this increasing wealth, these merchants and traders wanted to indicate their importance in a non-snobbish manner. What better way than to commission a portrait of themselves or of their senior partners. The most acclaimed portrait of this period epitomising this style is The Night Watch where a squad of merchants are depicted in semi-heroic poses as militia-men.

Rembrandt was only too happy to oblige. Without sycophantic measures, he portrayed these people as regal upright citizens without any ostentatious displays of opulence but with a whiff of piety overlaying it all. It was a match made in heaven. His rough but wealthy clientele were enchanted with the finished product. Rembrandt could not keep up with demand. It is often stated that it was Rembrandt’s empathy and understanding of the human condition which made this possible.

But Rembrandt desired more. With a huge stately house in an elegant part of Amsterdam beside an enchanting canal, Rembrandt no longer wished to depict merchants and their staff in heroic stately poses. He wanted to show them as their really were – ordinary people with the usual human afflictions, vices and concerns. This is when the glue between buyer and seller came unstuck. With more flamboyant strokes instead of the delicate detail that his customers knew and expected, the demand for his products declined precipitously. Many claimed that his work was unfinished, that Rembrandt was too lazy and that his glory days were behind him.

 

Unknown to Rembrandt they were indeed. With a dwindling income and a huge mortgage on his graceful house, it had to be auctioned off to settle his debts.

Rembrandt was reduced to living in destitution.

Notwithstanding his diminished status, Rembrandt refused to offer the customer what he wanted. Instead he persevered on his chosen path in adopting a less formal more realistic style. Needless to say, Rembrandt might have enjoyed personal gratification and satisfaction but this meant a lower bohemian status in life.

Finally Rembrandt was commissioned to paint a huge 6.5m by 6m painting for the Amsterdam Town Hall. What the Town Council expected was a painting in traditional style like Rembrandt used to paint. Needless to say, Rembrandt could not bring himself to comply. The end result was The Conspiracy of the Batavians under Claudius Civilis. Immediately anguish and consternation descended. Rembrandt was denigrated and forced to remove it. In order to cover his costs Rembrandt in despair cut it down to a picture of 3m by 2 metres.

 

Rembrandt died in ignominy without ever regaining the popular acclaim that he once enjoyed.

Ironically the rejected painting is now regarded by many art cognoscenti as Rembrandt’s finest work.

For me, with my plebeian unsophisticated taste, the more traditional The Night Watch is still preferable.

 

Vincent van Gogh

One could list many in the trajectory to modern art including a 19^th century British artist by the name of JWR Turner. Like a latter day Rembrandt his desire was also to make his mark on painting. Much like Rembrandt, he incurred the ire of his audience in his painting The Slave Ship. This depicted the deliberate killing of slaves by drowning so that the vessel’s master could claim their deaths at sea as losses at sea. This accorded with his moral outrage over this reprehensible incident.

Instead I will deal with Vincent van Gogh a pioneer, and some would claim, the father of modern art.

Becoming a painter was an afterthought for Vincent. Initially all that he wished to do was to save people’s souls. It was in London where he went to preach to the indigent and the dregs of society. In the dark alleys and derelict neighbourhoods, he trawled for his customers. In this vocation, Vincent excelled. With a fiery passion he attempted to save these unfortunates from eternal damnation. With passion came dismissal from his job as a preacher; his sin was being too passionate.

 

Still on a mission to save the world, at the age of 30 he took up painting for the first time in his life. He was of the opinion that he would be able to change the world through art. Perhaps it was a forlorn hope but he was convinced that he would be able to make a difference in another manner.

Being untutored, Vincent developed his own style of painting. This involved the use of bright stark colours combined with a stabbing brushwork style. The stroke of the brush was invariably twirled resulting in swirling motion across the painting.

Increasingly troubled by mental illness, one wonders whether his madness was in fact the midwife of his brilliance. Of course this was indirect for it was during his periods of lucidity that he created his finest work.

 

This style is what is epitomised in his most famous piece entitled Wheatfield with Crows. His approach in this instance dispensed with a critical component of painting viz perspective. With nothing to focus the eyes upon but the whole pictures, one is forced to scrutinise the whole picture. In this specific piece, the direction of flight of the crows as depicted could either be perceived as flying towards one or flying off into the distance. Without any cues provided – visual or otherwise – it is always a matter of conjecture.

With this painting, Vincent had produced his finest piece of art and with it, he achieved fame. Steadily his periods of lucidity diminished. During such periods of mental stability, he was enraptured like a demon churning out a piece a day.

But then another attack struck. In his delirium he needed to become part of the paints itself. In distress, the chrome yellow struck him. He needed it. Grabbing a tube, he squeezed it into his mouth and savoured it like he would devour the colours with his eyes. Fortunately van Gogh survived.

 

In a frenzy, like a man possessed with demons, his output now became truly prodigious as if he was aware of his mortality. The frequency of the attacks was compressed. Finally in a state of despair, Vincent shot himself. The stomach wound was not immediately fatal but the infection was. Within two days he was dead.

The progenitor of modern art was no more.

The colours of art no longer had to be morose and forlorn filled with pathos. Instead the picture could now depict stark bright colours with harsh brush strokes with no fine delicate strokes.

This type of art came to be called Expressionism.

Picasso

It was only in the Twentieth Century that the final break with convention occurred. Leading the charge was Pablo Ruiz y Picasso, commonly known simply as Picasso. In my mind, like most modern artists including musicians, painters were afflicted by the curse of novelty. No longer were they able to become famous let alone make a living unless they could add a novel dimension to their work. Raw talent was no longer the criteria for fame and fortune. Apart from Picasso’s decision never to accept a commission to paint nobility or the wealthy as this would require the depiction of exaggerated grace and beauty, moreover he took this line of thinking to the next level by the conscious removal of beauty itself.

For me the whole point of art is the beauty. It was not so much the grim and the gritty that he depicted but rather the removal of the voluptuousness from a stunning beauty. Even a supposedly “beautiful” painting of his surreptitious girlfriend shows her with an over-size penis attached to her forehead while she gently masturbates. This is no even erotica with its distorted body parts and deformed features. But that is the essence of Cubism as it came to be known.

In 1937 Picasso commenced his piece de resistance¸ the apex of his career, Guernica. This depicted the wanton destruction of the Basque town using the Cubist technique. It received rave reviews and established Pablo Picasso as a pre-eminent painter of the century.

To me this painting is merely a series of misshapen forms with a vague resemblance to human and animal body parts.

Being “exiled” in Paris, Picasso was trapped in the Nazi controlled City after the defeat of the French Army in July 1940. The Gestapo would continually harass Picasso by intimidating him and trashing his studio. On one such unwelcome visit, one the Gestapo officers picked up a card with the painting of Guernica on it.

 

Holding it towards Picasso, he queried, “Did you do this?”

“No. You did” referring to the bombers of the German Condor Legion which had destroyed the town.

“Take it.” He continued, “As a souvenir”

Mark Rothko

Born Marcus Rothkowitz, of Russian Jewish descent, Mark Rothko, was the foremost American painter of the post war period along with Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning.

It was only subsequent to WW2 that Rothko was finally able to develop his unique signature style which the critics correctly described as multiform. In essence this style embodied the use of symmetrical rectangular blocks of two to three opposing or contrasting, yet complementary colours. Nothing but blocks on the canvass but these this style was revelatory for the art critics and they sold like hot cakes.

Painting was now utterly divorced from the real world as it merely represented emotions with no content. The substance was provided by the viewer’s imagination.

Abstract Art era

The greatest exponent of the final art form known as Abstract Art was Andy Warhol. Personally I cannot relate to this art form at all. I will ascribe my common tastes to my lack of cultured upbringing so as not to show my ignorance.

Due to my lack of comprehension and understanding as regards this art form, I will not write a critique of it.

 

End of an era

From art being merely an exact replica of the world, it inexorably traversed the terrain to denude itself of all the elements that comprised great art – beauty, resemblance, detail and even perspective.

Not surprising as each was discarded, so the novelty factor ineluctably forced the next to be jettisoned in its turn.

Emotions arising from shapeless forms and colours rather than recognisable artefacts and people, has become the final arbiter of what constitutes art.

But who am I to quibble?

I am merely an artistically illiterate individual surveying the art world.