Triangulation
Essay
'Once upon a time there was pure art and applied art (I prefer to use
these terms, rather than 'fine' and 'commercial' because 'commercial art' does
not cover enough ground). At all events, forms were born in secret in ivory
towers and fathered by divine inspiration, and Artists showed them only to
initiates and only in the shape of paintings and pieces of sculpture: for these
were the only channels of communication open to the old forms of art.’ (Munari,
1966, p.34).
The intention of this essay is to explore the meaning and arguments to this quote.
There will also be debating over the notion of art belonging to a certain
category or movement and how this could be positive, as it generates a mutual
understanding or negative as it may be restrictive.
The
sections ‘ forms were born in secret in ivory towers’ and ‘Artists showed them only to
initiates and only in the shape of paintings and pieces of sculpture’ from
the quote imply that art was strongly associated and dependent on class. Only a
select few of a higher class could view pieces of fine art whereas prints were
created and mass distributed so that many people of a lower class could obtain
a piece of artwork (Print Culture and Distribution lecture, 2016). As there was
an obvious divide, the purpose and audience of a piece of art was much more
straight forward compared to modern day where there is much more variety and
art can be accessible to anybody. Traditionally art could have been used to
form a wedge between working class and upper class. (pottery is low art, sculpture isn’t)’ (Dormer, 1997, p.19).
Now, art
is so broad that there is confusion surrounding it. In the quote above Munari
uses the terms ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ to categorise art in order to simplify it,
as they are broader terms. This contrasts to the opinion of Heskett. ‘Design… it is full of incongruities, has
innumerable manifestations, and lacks boundaries that give clarity and
definition’ (Heskett, 2002, p.3). Here the use of a broad term is
considered as a negative, ‘little
agreement will probably exist about exactly what is understood by the term’ (Heskett,
2002, p.3). From these quotes it’s clear that there are numerous debates on
what defines a category of art. However, the last quote explains that the issue
is from how open design is visually and not from the over-categorisation of
design.
Poynor
backs up this argument in the sense of styles belonging to a period of time ‘…postmodern graphic design as a contained
stylistic category is misleading because it implies that the design that
succeeded it in stylistic terms no longer has a relationship with
postmodernism.’ (Poynor, 2003, p.18). This quote suggests another confusion
surrounding the visual aspect to these categories, there has to be a point
where the art is changing into a new movement. Postmodern art is especially
difficult to recognise as it is a movement that expresses freedom and refuses
to be involved in the constraints of categorisation.
Dormer
wrote a possible solution for this which contrasts to those opinions. If there
is an agreed specific definition and constraints for design, there may be less
confusion around the practice. ‘To be of
any real use definitions should not proceed through generalities’ (Dormer,
1997, p.5). This expresses that a vague statement on what makes art a certain
type will not work, the conventions have to be consistent in order to make an
art type valid. Similarly to the quote from Heskett, who also believes that
there is a lack of specification within art categories.
Berger mentions
in Ways of Seeing that we see what is
around us before words and explanations are used, words are just a way of
explaining what we are seeing. Although words work as an agreed language, ‘the relation between what we see and what
we know is never settled’ (Berger, 1972, p.7). As we view visual pieces, our
individual thoughts take place before discussion on what it is. We try to work
out what it should be called after, which would imply that there is no need to
at all.
From the
texts used, it seems that categories are mainly in place for conversation or
understanding a piece. We may never have a single definition so there isn’t
really an understanding. There are several sections to form a type of art, ‘Form, genre and style’ (Boundless,
Categorizing Art, 2017)
A reaction
to traditional art types was anti-art, most well-known from the Dada movement
and more specifically Marcel Duchamp. ‘Dada
anti-art was a snub to academic art and it’s set of values (inspiration,
genius, uniqueness, eternal beauty)’ (Beech, 2002, p.208). Anti-art did not
want to be recognised as a category or movement, it was in place to defy the
conventions and associations of art genres.
‘Anti-art was set against art but really it set out to refashion art’ (Beech,
2002, p.221). However, anti-art naturally fell into a category of art due to it
being defined through communication so failed to break the restraints of
categorisation. An example of this is from this article ‘Anti-art is a label for art that intentionally challenges the
established parameters and values of art’ (Boundless, Categorizing Art,
2017).
Linking
back to Munari’s terms of ‘pure art’ and
‘applied art’, Dormer mentions a
similar definition in the book The
Culture of Craft. ‘the separation of
the arts into categories of ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ (pottery is low art, sculpture
isn’t)’ (Dormer, 1997, p.19) again the point is made that sculpture is a
higher valued piece only for the purpose of aesthetics whereas pottery which
has got a function is not as valuable. ‘the
separation of making from meaning’ (Dormer, 1997, p.19) these two terms
simplify what the purpose of a piece is, which may be the most successful or
only necessary form of categorisation, which makes sense of Munari using two
broad terms for art.
To
conclude, having definitions for art types is essential, but in moderation as
confusion stems from the overuse of definitions and diversity in modern art.
Munari’s terms pure art and applied art appear to be the most balanced form of categorisation
as they are very open and suggest a purpose which can be a most important
factor. This is appropriate for design however fine art is mainly for the
aesthetic purpose meaning it can be admired for simply what it is. It may be
impossible to not categorise art as communication is a key part of it and the
only way to mutually understand art.
Bibliography:
1. Munari,
Bruno (1966) Design as Art. Rome:
Editori Laterza
2. Dormer,
P. (1997) The Culture of Craft (Studies in Design MUP). Edition.
Manchester University Press.
3.
Heskett, John. (2002) Toothpicks and Logos. Oxford/Newyork: Oxford University Press
4. Poynor, R. (2003) No More Rules. London: Lawrence King
5. Berger,
J. (1972) Ways Of Seeing,
Harmondsworth: Penguin. pp. 129-141
6. Boundless. (2017). Categorizing
Art. (Online) Available at: https://www.boundless.com/art-history/concepts/categorizing-art-0-6117/. [Accessed 27 January 2017].
7. Beech, Dave (2002). The Philistine Controversy. Edition. Verso.
No comments:
Post a Comment