Art or Culture?

Both art and culture are important aspects of the lives of people and groups. These aspects of our lives also differ from country to country and culture to culture. But, does art influence the culture? Or does culture influence the art?

One of the most interesting trends that I want to postulate about in this post is the occurrence or increase of art as related to social stability. When a group of people feel secure in their way of life or have excess money, they’re more likely to produce art, possibly even great quantities of art, depending upon their needs and prosperity.

The beginnings of art did not coincide with the beginnings of intelligent beings. According to the hierarchy of needs, we must fulfill our basic needs before we can create luxury objects, such as art. During the time of hunting and gathering, very little art was created. Being a nomadic society, people had to spend time hunting for food and supplying it for their group. They were not creative thinkers. The few pieces of art that we have from pre-historic times and before groups of people settled in one place, are very small and easily transportable. An example of this is the Venus of Willendorf, which was a small stone fertility idol created in 24,000 BCE. 

Once people began to settle and live in a fixed location, they had the ability to create larger objects of importance. They could create items that were larger and heavier, because it would not be necessary to transport them when they moved to a new location. Another aspect of these people being able to create more art was the discovery of farming. Farming made it easier for these groups of people to collect and provide food for their entire group. The women could help harvest the food and then prepare it while the men hunted. This allowed for some people in the group to have free time. When a society begins to have free time, they also have the freedom to create objects of representative importance. So, for the people of pre-historic times, they were able to start creating art after they had a permanent location and the freedom of time. 

As to art’s creation in the modern world, it has a lot to do with economics and politics. The creation of art often coincides with societal prosperity and exploration of thought. Basically, when there is more money, there is more art. And, often, when there is less money, funding for the arts is the first thing to be cut. One good example of this, is in our current economic situation. There have been many cases across the country where federal and local funding is being cut from museums and schools. (Click here)  Politics can also increase funding cuts to the arts. As stated in the article below, conservative political groups sometimes do not approve of spending federal money on liberal artists.

Another example of when we see an increase in art production is when there is an increase in exploration of thoughts or controversial ideas. Prime examples of this is the Renaissance as well as the politically charged time when we saw the start of the –isms, such as impressionism, cubism and pointillism. All of these art styles were conceived to challenge a preconceived idea and explore a new perspective on art and culture.

So, I honestly don’t think I can answer whether art effects culture or culture effects art. All I know is that they are definitely and forever intertwined.

Museum Architecture

I have talked a lot about museums and their collections in my previous posts so now I’d like to talk about the physical building, where the collection is housed. Do you think the building makes a difference in the quality of the museum?

First off, I’d like to start with the big picture and then work our way inward. The outside architecture – does it distract from the art? Let’s start off with the real-world example of the Guggenheim in New York.  This museum was designed by world famous architect Frank Lloyd Wright. The Guggenheim in New York is a beautiful round spiral building that was designed to break away and challenge the square-ness of the city. But, does the large (physically and politically) statement detract from the true meaning of a museum? While looking at the architecture and thinking about how odd it looks right in the middle of a New York City block, do we forget about the importance of the art inside? And educating the people? I think this is a very probable possibility

I’m not saying architecture is not important. In truth, architecture can be art. And, a building that’s purpose is to house art, certainly, should not be ugly. All I am trying to say is that the building’s architecture should not be the main focus of a museum. (With the exception that it is a museum of architecture.) Not distract them from the art and teaching of art.

So, the Guggenheim is a phenomenal example of architecture, but is a bad example of what a museum should be. In contrast, a good example of a museum that combines both beauty and function is the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth. This museum, designed by, Tadao Ando and opened in 2002, does not distract or detract from the art. If anything the windows and natural lighting add to the visitors receptiveness of the art. It is an inviting building with high ceiling and open spaces. This museum is not only architecturally beautiful, but also relevant in the fact that it serves the purpose it was designed for.

The next step in analyzing the physical building is the inside architecture. Wall space is incredibly important to an art museum. (Duh! Where else are you going to put the art?) Natural lighting is the best way to illuminate art, but windows can cause a huge problem because they take up wall space. One way that many museums have found to compromise is to add windows in corners, or horizontal windows at the top of the wall, both of which are places where art is not commonly hung.

The actual layout of the museum is important because the viewer must feel comfortable and not be confused as to where to go. Crowd flow in museums is very important. When curators hang the art in the gallery they do it in a specific way. There is usually a certain painting that you are supposed to look at first and then last. Often this pattern is based upon which door most museum patrons will enter; as well as on the psychological factor that most people move through an exhibit in a counter clockwise pattern.

Another important aspect of the inside design of the museum is storage space. This is not something that many museum visitors will ever think about. But, believe it or not, most of the art that a museum owns is in storage. A common saying is that 60% of the museum space should be dedicated to gallery space and 40% should be dedicated to administrative offices and storage. Some museum guides even suggest a 50/50 split.

There are many aspects of a museum that the viewer should not think about. Architecture, storage and utilities are a few examples. When done well the museum will just flow and seem natural. When all of these elements do come together perfectly, you get a great museum that makes your community happy, which is always the ultimate goal of a museum.

Historical or contemporary art?

So, as a pairing to my post last week, I am going to write about contemporary art versus historical art. I want to touch on what makes each of these types good and bad, why some museums specialize in these different types of art and what motivates people to like certain types of art.

There are obvious differences between contemporary and historical art, such as, they look different and were created during different time periods, but the most important difference is that they were created with different goals. Every artist has a reason to create art and every viewer has a way of interpreting the art. This is often very different between contemporary and historical art.

Historically, art was designed for a specific purpose. And that was often a religious purpose. While discussing prehistoric art, I am going to use the word religion loosely. Here, the word religion is being used to describe any system of ideas that is used to rule the group. For example, pagan or polytheistic religions. Art, in its very beginnings, such as the work to the right, was used to communicate ideas that were of significant importance to the group.  The small stone idol below is called the Venus of Willendorf. This statue was used as a fertility idol. Notice that her stomach, genitals and breasts are accentuated. And that her face is non-descript. All of these characteristics show that she was believed to increase a woman’s fertility. During the time period when this was created, reproduction was incredibly important because the child mortality rate was high. It shows that reproduction and continuing the community was a focus for this society.

Another focus of historical art was learning how to represent the human form and perspective correctly in paintings. You can see in this painting, the artist had not quite mastered it yet. La Grande Odalisque by Ingres.  She looks as if she has too many vertebrae in her back. Perfection and representing what life really looked like was a focus of historical art.

Contemporary art has been used used to make a statement, usually one that it is political or a comment on societal values. For example as part of the NEW FRONTIERS series for contemporary art at the Oklahoma City Museum of Art, they have invited Franco Mondini-Ruiz to present his show called Poodles & Pastries (and Other Important Matters.) http://www.okcmoa.com/see/exhibitions/current-exhibitions/poodles-and-pastries/ For this show, Mondini-Ruiz actually came out to the museum and created his art there. The artist spent a few days going around Norman to collect items and inspiration from antique stores. For one night at the museum, guests were invited and as Mondini-Ruiz furiously painted and shouted out names, the visitors curated the show. They hung the art on the wall, chose where it was going to be displayed and even helped to name some of the sculptures. Most of the sculptures are made with whimsical characters and snarky names. And then, on opening night of the show, visitors could take the paintings off the wall and buy them right there. This is the way of art in the future.

As a self-taught artist, part of the statement that Mondini-Ruiz is trying to make is that the art world should not be exclusive. It should include all types of people and works. By making his paintings (hundreds) in one night he shows that art does not have to be a work of time, it can be spontaneous and vibrant. Not just perfect.

In contrast to the historical art that aimed to represent life and be perfect, contemporary art tries to break boundaries and explore different interpretations of what life can look like. One of the earliest examples of this is Picasso. He and his contemporaries of the cubist movement were experimenting to see if they could represent a three-dimensional object in two dimensions, without making it seem flat. One of his most famous examples is Guernica, above. This is just one small example of how, after artists figured out how to do it perfectly, they started playing with perspective and dimensions.

In the art world, once the rules have been established and perfected, it is time to break them. Artists had achieved the perspective, vanishing points, color theory, lighting and shading, it was time to stretch their creative muscles. That is what the contemporary time-period of art has been about.

I think one of the most important similarities between contemporary and historical art is the artist’s goal. No matter the art, pre-historical to today, the artist creates that art with a goal in mind. He wants to speak his opinion and beliefs through his paintings or sculptures. The main difference between the two types of art is what the specific goal is. In my opinion, historical art is intended to inform, usually for a religious or political purpose, while much of contemporary art was intended to entertain and challenge formalized ideas.