read daniel-henry kahnweiler’s “the rise of cubism” in which he explains how cubism solved the conflict between representation and structure. representation is concerned with reproducing a three dimensional object on a two dimensional, flat surface and the correct use of color. structure stands for the comprehension of that object within the unity of the painting. he is quick to point out that representation of form, as envisaged by cubists, did not mean the use of light and shade (chiaroscuro) in order to give depth and dimension to objects and comprehension did not mean simply good composition.
picasso and braque, the two founders of cubism, abandoned fidelity to nature (as embodied by illusionist practices of painting) to create a new language of form. by using geometric schemes of form to build a painting forward, starting with a well-defined background, by using different sources of light and showing objects from different sides, and by using color as an end in itself, cubists were able to break the link between the painting and the outer world. this afforded them unprecedented artistic freedom. however, by introducing undistorted real objects into the painting, they were able to stimulate the spectator’s memory thus allowing her to fuse the various representations of an object into a coherent whole, in her mind. the goal of painting shifted from being analytical to synthetic. descriptive titles were used to further facilitate the spectator’s ability to assimilate and synthesize.
kahnweiler goes on to argue that cubism lessens the unconscious human effort needed to perceive three dimensional objects by merging flat optical images (seen in terms of horizontal and vertical lines as well as circles) with existing knowledge of the third dimension (cubes, spheres and cylinders). this is because cubists emulate the process of human vision – they use basic forms as the skeletal frame on which their paintings are constructed (much like retinal images) and provide details which trigger memory images and enable the human mind to mesh that information together into a lucid “seeing” of the painting.
on subject matter:
mechanization, the soullessness of mass production and the resultant social disconnectedness were all reflected in “modern” art. i posted seurat’s “grande jatte” a while back. that’s the seminal artwork in that respect. with cubism there was more focus on “painterly” dilemmas. cezanne changed painting forever when he began to concern himself with the inherent structure of the painting first and foremost. the goal of this “autonomous” approach was to produce revolutionary art which was completely apolitical.
in les demoiselles we r beginning to see picasso’s struggle with representation and unity. he was strongly influenced by african masks, by their ability to abstract. hence u see the “modelling” in the figures on the right. even the “passage” (way of linking foreground, middleground and background) is faceted. the perspective is totally off, of course, much like cezanne. similarly, the tools of the trade r in evidence – for example the cross-hatcheting. cubism developed a new complex language which broke the final bonds with “closed” form and faithful representation.
on picasso’s misogynism:
there r certainly some misogynist undertones to picasso’s work, especially his later work. it’s not just him. i was shocked to discover that gauguin’s tahitian mistresses were no more than 13-15 yrs old and that cezanne entertained rape fantasies. when i posted renoir’s painting “la loge” and compared it to may’s cassatt’s we had a v interesting discussion on how art as we know it might have been completely diff if women had been allowed to have more of a voice. i love what judy chicago says about this:
“I think that one of the questions I raised in Women and Art is that if we can’t use the historic language of art because so much of it is misogynous, what language are we supposed to use as women artists? If we can’t use the female body, for example, because there is such a thin line between representation and colonization, then what are we supposed to do?
To build a new language, that’s a big job. And you have to remember that feminist, oppositional art is only thirty years old. Certainly there were antecedents to it—one could mention a lot of earlier women. But still they worked more in the tradition of art. There wasn’t yet an openly female tradition for younger women to work in. So women are at the beginning of building a language, and not all women are conscious of it.”
and that reminds me of helene cixous’s “le rire de la meduse” – women must invent a new language, a language rooted in their own bodies: ecris-toi, il faut que ton corps se fasse entendre.